INSTRUCTIONAL SUPERVISION AND AVOIDANCE PROCESS

Journal of Curriculum and Supervion372 Summer 1992, Vol 7, No 4, 372-392

INSTRUCTIONAL SUPERVISION AND THEAVOIDANCE PROCESS

KAREN R OKEAFOR, Purdue UniversityMARYBETH G. POOLE, Camp Lejeune (North Carolina)

Dependents' Schools

Supervision is the general leadership function of overseeing the work ofothers. Ideally, supervision in schools is conducted to improve the instruc-tional program and the learning experiences of students.' In some schools,however, school administrators seem committed less to improvement than tomaintaining the status quo. In such schools, those who would logically providesupervision are busy with other duties, and those who would be the subjectsof supervision are left to orchestrate not only the everyday happenings Intheir classrooms but also their own improvement.

Where supervision is authentic rather than ceremonial, effective superor-dinates organize, observe, and improve the basic work of the organization aswell as interact considerately with the workers.2 Concepts and relationshipssuggested by the leadership models associated with thisgoal-oriented, rationalsystem perspective can be easily formulated Into prescriptions for effectiveleadership. For example, effective leaders should let subordinates know whatis expected of them, assist them in diagnosing and generating solutions toproblems, and be considerate and supportive.

'See, for example, Allan A Glaithorn, DifferentiatedSupertston (Alexandria, VA Associainunfor Supervision and Curriculum Development, 1984), Carl D Glidkman, Superviston of nstruc-lion. A DetvelopmentalApproach, 2nd ed. (Allyn and Bacon, 1990), Jon Wiles and Joseph Bondl,Supenrision A Guide to Practice, 3rd ed. (New York Merrill, 1991)

2See, for example, Fred Fiedler, A Theory of Leadersbip Effectrmeness (New York. McGraw-

Hill, 1967), Andre'w W. Halpin, Theory and Research m Adnmnstration (New York. Macmillan,1966), John K Hemphill and Alvin E. Coons, Leader Behavior Description (Columbus, OH.Personnel Research Board, Ohio State University, 1950), Paul Hersey and Kenneth Blanchard,ManagementofOrganzaionalBehatvor Btlztng Human Resources, 4th ed (EnglewoodCliffs,NJ Prencuce-Hall, 1982), Robert J. House, A Path-Goal Theory of Leadership Effecoveness,Administrative Science Quarterly 16 (September 1971) 321-338, ThomasJ sergiovanm, 'Leader-ship and Excellence in Schoolihng, EducattonalLeadershp 41 (February 1984). 4',-13, Ralph M.Stogdill, Manualfor the Leader Behatvor Descrptton Quesntonnatre-Form Xll (Columbus, OHBureau of Business Research, Ohio State University, 1963)

'W Richard Scott, Organizations. Rational, Natural, and Open Systems, 2d ed (EnglewoodCliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall, Inc, 1987)

Karen R. Okeafor and Marybeth G. Poole

An alternative perspective on supervision in schools supports the statusquo. This perspective argues that, in part because of beliefs that teachers areprofessionals who are competent to perform complex instructional tasks andwho desire considerable autonomy in their work, supervision and instructionare decoupled.4 In this view, the glue holding school participants together ina relatively coherent enterprise is not leadership through supervision, but the"logic of confidence," an assumption of competence up and down the line.5

Viewed prescriptively, the logic of confidence with respect to teachers meansthat because teachers are believed to be professionals (and thus reflective andself-correcting), they should be shown respect, close supervision of theirwork should be avoided, and their observed mistakes should be forgiven oroverlooked whenever possible.

Descriptions of schools and their participants are less rational in thisperspective than in the leadership literature cited previously. For example,from this perspective principals may be concerned more with image andsurvival than with substance and instructional improvement Thus they mayfunction more to manage favorable impressions of their personnel andschools than to serve as effective task leaders, especially of curriculum andinstruction. This natural system perspective conveys an image of fairly inde-pendent organizational participants who have little overlapping responsibilityand who assume their colleagues are both able and willing to do their jobs 6

Ability is assumed if teachers possess appropriate degrees and licenses Will-ingness Is assumed because of a belief in a universal desire to maintain "face"in social interactions.7

Meyer and Rowan's assertion that educational organizations are character-ized by decoupling and a logic of confidence is a provocative idea Consideringwhether these concepts are applicable to a work setting is intriguing becauseof the paradox they suggest, especially in work relationships between superor-dinates and subordinates. After all, though we would expect administrators tobe considerate of teachers, aren't administrators hired to watch over the workof school personnel and correct problems they observe? To what extent doschool administrators assume teachers are doing what is expected of them,avoid interactions with teachers to minimize potentially embarrassing situa

'See, for example, Charles W. Bidwell, 'The School as a Formal Organizauon," in HandbookofOrganuzatons, ed James G March (Chicago Rand McNally, 1965), pp 9"2-1022,John W Meyerand Brian Rowan, 'Institutlonalized Organizations Formal Structtre as Myth and Ceremony"AmencanJournal of Sociology 83 (September 19"7) 340-363.John W Meyer and Brian Rowan.

The Structure of Edu.catonal Organizations," in Entironments and Organzations ed MarshallW Meyer San Francisco Jose Bass, 19

78),pp. 78-109, KarlE Weick,"Educational Organizations

as Loosely Coupled Systems," Administratle Science Quarerly 21 (March 1976) 1-19john W. Meyer and Brian Rowan, "The Structure of Educational Organizations," in Ent'ro,

ments and Organzatiotzs, ed. Marshall W Meyer (San Francisco Jossey Bass, 19'8), pp 78-10 0'W. Robert Scott, Orgauizations Rational, Natural, and Open Systems, 2d ed. (Englewood

Cliffs, NJ. Prentice-Hall, Inc, 1987).'Erving Goffman, Interaction Ritual (Garden City, NY. Anclhor, 1967).

373

Instructional Supervision and the Avoidance Process

tions, and overlook undesirable teacher behaviors in order to protect teachers'"face" and the image of the school?

Goffman offers a more general framework for thinking about face-workIn social interactions and a less severe test of respect for others than Meyerand Rowan's logic of confidence notion.8 Goffman suggests two basic kinds offace-work: the avoidance process and the corrective process. In the avoidanceprocess, persons show respect for others, stay away from potentially embar-rassing situations, and downplay or overlook observed mistakes if possible.When blunders or problems cannot be overlooked, Goffman contends thatpersons engage in a corrective process to "reestablish a satisfactory ritualstate".9 Meyer and Rowan maintain that the logic of confidence is an appliedversion of Goffman's face-work notion, especially the avoidance process; butthis assertion raises quesuons. Do educators perceive supervision and face-wdrk to be fundamentally at odds? Do teachers regard direct instructionalsupervision as disrespectful? Do teachers associate structural avoidance (stay-ing away from classrooms) with administrator respect for teachers?

PURPOSE AND RESEARCH QUESTIONS

The purpose of our study was to explore how teachers characterizeadministrators' supervisory behaviors and relationships between administra-tors and teachers, including how principals show respect for teachers. Wewondered whether we would find cases congruent with a natural systemperspective (i.e., a pattern of fairly weak supervision but strong informalrelationships between teachers and administrators, coupled with high admin-istrator respect, avoidance, and overlooking, as predicted by Meyer andRowan); a rational system perspective (i.e., a pattern of strong. supervisionperhaps coupled with high respect for subordinates); or other outlooks.'0

We interviewed teachers in a variety of school settings and levels toexplore their perceptions of supervision and administrator-teacher relation-ships. Our research questions were: How do teqchers describe supervisionin their schools? How do teachers characterize relationships between adminis-trators and teachers? How do teachers specify administrator respect for teach-ers? What patterns among these factors can be identified across cases?

tErving Goffman, Interaction Ritual (Garden city, NY- Anchor, 1967),John W Meyer andBrian Rowan, "lnstitutionallzed Organizationg Formal Structure as Myth and Ceremony,." AmencanJournal of Sociologv 83 (September 1977)- 340-363;John W Meyer and Brian Rowan, "TheStructure of Educational Organizations," in En'ironments and Organizatons, ed Marshall WMeyer (San Francsco. Jossey-Bass, 1978), pp. 78-109

;Erving Goffman, Interaction Ritual (Garden City. NY Anchor, 1967), p 19.C'ohn W Meyer and Brian Rowan, "Institutlonalized Organizations. Formal Structure as Myth

and Ceremony," AmericanJournal of Sociology 83 (September 1977). 340-363,John W. Meyerand Brian Rowan, 'The Structure of Educatiunal Orgazatluns, ' In Envronments and Organiza-tions, ed Marshall W. Meyer (San Francisco. Jossey-Bass, 1978), pp 78-109

374


SAMPLE AND METHOD

The 15 teachers we interviewed-all had four or more years of teachingexperience and worked in schools with administrators having four or moreyears of administrative experience. Teachers were purposefully selected toparticipate in the study because we believed they would be comfortable andopen in discussing their perceptions about principal-teacher relationshipswith us.

Interview data represent the 15 teachers' individual views on supervisionand administrator-teacher relationships in theit schools and may not be theperceptions of other teachers in those schools. The teacher interviewed, andthus their perspectives, are not presented as representative cases from theirschools. Rather, they are viewed as initial sources in an exploratory study ofteachers' perceptions about supervision and the avoidance process.

Seven of the 15 teachers taught in schools in or near a large southerncity. Six worked in public schools and one in a nonpublic school. Oneinvestigator interviewed all seven. The public school teachers taught in fivedifferent school systems-four in elementary schools, one in a middle school,and two in secondary schools (see Table 1). Because of the amount andquality of information one teacher (ane) provided about both her current andprevious principals, we included both relationships in the study

The second investigator interviewed the remaining eight teachers, whotaught in four elementary schools in a Department of Defense (DOD) schoolsystem serving depehdents of military personnel in a southern state Datafrom these teachers are grouped in the discussion that follows because of

Table 1. Characteristics of Teachers' Schools

Teacher Type of school Level of school Enrollment

8 Dept of Defense Mllltar) base schools Elementary 500-00Teachers'

Elaine Suburban, publihc Elementar 50G0

Sarah Suburban/rural Elementary 260public

Donna Suburban, public Elementary 425Theresa Urban, public Elementary 440Patricia Suburban, public Middle 960Jane ' I Suburban, public Secondary 980

2 Suburban, public Secondary 980

John Suburban, nonpublic Secondary 240

.lDept. of Defense teahers were grouped because of substannal agreement In their answers tokey questions

375


substantial similarity in the teachers' answers to key questions about supervision and administrator-teacher relationships.

Interviews typically lasted two-and-a-half to three hours, however oneinterview required only an hour and-a-half and two interviews lasted morethan four hours. An interview guide of 23 open-ended questions on administrator-teacher and teacher teacher relationships structured the interviews.Data addressing only supervision and administrator-teacher relationships arepresented here.

Because we sought to understand the teachers' meaning of key concepts,we asked teachers to clarify, illustrate, and elaborate on their statements. Thetiming and number of these queries varied depending on thle interviewer'sjudgment of the level of generality of the interviewees' statements. Probesincluded: "What do you mean by...?" "Could you illustrate...?" "Is thereanything else?" Interviews were unhurried. Silence was observed followingteachers' r&sponses, and we repeated questions or asked teachers if the1 hadanything else to say before proceeding to a new question.

We tape-recorded, transcribed, and then analyzed the interviews. Eachcase was summarized to characterize the teacher's perceptions about supervision, relationships between administrators and teachers, and administrativeavoidance or respect for teachers. After preparing an initial description ofadministrator-teacher relationships and teachers' responses to key questions,we again listened to the tapes to assure a reasonably holistic interpretation ofthe data. Finally, we constructed a table of responses to key questions. Ifteachers' responses followed a similar pattern, we clustered them togetheron the table.

FINDINGS

We derived four well-defined patterns from the 15 teachers' views onhow they were supervised, how they described relationships between admin-istrators and teachers, and how administrators were perceived to demonstraterespect for teachers. We labeled the patterns "backstage supervisors," "surlysupervisors," "imperial supervisors," and "collaborative supervisors."

Pattern 1: Backstage Supervisors

Backstage supervisors seldom engaged in formal instructional supervi-sion (sometimes even avoiding system mandated classroom observations forteacher evaluations), developed high-quality personal or informal relationships with teachers, showed high respect for teachers, and "overlooked"errors and problems in classrooms fairly often. John's principal and Jane'sfirst principal came closest to fitting this classic Meyer and Rowan descriptionof a high logic of confidence in teachers and minimal formal supervision. Weincluded Patricia's and Sarah's principals in this pattern, though they displayedthese traits to a lesser extent.

376

Karen R Okeafor and Marybeth G. Poole

Supennszon. Pattern 1 teachers were fairly satisfied with the informal,in-response supervision they received, and this pattern seemed to enableprincipals to stay on top of things" even though they seldom directly observedinstruction. For example, John had few contacts with his principal unless heneeded her. He had more frequent interactions with his department head,initiating interactions with such openings as, "Look, what happens when thiskind. of situation arises?" or, "Listen, this is what's going on in my class."Similarly, Patricia's principal made "teachers feel free to go up to her and tellher about things that they've been doing." In addition, Patricia's principalinitiated interactions when she wanted something done (eg., asking Patriciato serve "stairway duty" between classes), when she had information aboutstudent activities that might interest Patricia and her students, and when shewanted to recognize something Patricia or her students had done.

Backstage supervisors were thought to be aware of everything that wasimportant in the school through communications with students, parents,teachers, and department chairs. They were concerned with teachers' attitudestoward students and the "big picture." They promoted teacher-initiated contacts about instructional or student matters by spending a lot of time withteachers and "right from the beginning." For example, Jane's first principal,at a suburban secondary school, was someone who "took you by the hand",nd explained things. He was personable, caring, sharing, informal, flexible,a listener, and someone who "hated going in the classrooms." He wasregarded not as an instructional leader, but as a resource person who readwidely and exchanged ideas with teachers. He delegated considerable responsibility and authority to assistant principals and department chairs, who inturn seemed to leave much to teachers' discretion.

Avoidance. Backstage supervisors showed respect for teachers in a varietyof ways. They called teachers by their first names and conveyed a friendly,welcoming tone of voice. They weren't always checking to make sure teacherswere doing what they were supposed to be doing. In addition, they listenedto teachers' ideas, gave time to teachers (even for idle chatter), allowedteachers to try new things, and treated teachers as peers. LikeJane's principal,they conveyed an attitude that "we are all learning together and we are all inthis (trying to make it through another year) together."

Backstage supervisors also showed respect for teachers by being willingto bend the rules slightly (e.g., allowing teachers to leave the school premisesduring their planning period or to take time off to attend professional meetings, "so long as everything that needs to be done is done") and makingallowances for teachers' idiosyncrasies or personality differences (e.g., allowing teachers to be "a little late").

These principals confided in teachers, collaborated on ideas with teachers,asked teachers to be on committees or take responsibilities beyond theirclassrooms, and included teachers in decision processes. For example,j6hn's

377

Instructional Stpervsion and the Avoidance Process

principal posed open-ended questions (e.g., "What do you think we shoulddo?"), and "she would react to your input whether she agreed or not, but itwas always taken seriously, and it was implemented If it was a good Idea."

Because teachers perceived backstage supervisors as respectful, available,friendly, and helpful, teachers tended to initiate communications with theirprincipals about problems as they arose. Many problems were worked outbackstage, or informally, as suggested by Goffman and Meyer and Rowan." Atthe same time, backstage supervisors displayed moderate to high levels of"staying away" from classrooms and overlooking instructional problems.Thus, if teachers did not recognize a need for assistance and seek help fromtheir principal, or if principals were not made aware of problems by others(teachers, students, or parents), problems might not be detected by the prmn-pal, or if noticed, might not be taken on as problems to be solved. Backstagesupervisors were thought to exchange leniency and forgiveness of mistakesfor teachers' generally competent performance.

Pattern 2. Surly Supervisors

Surly supervisors engaged in fairly infrequent classroom supervision,had low-quality relationships with teachers, and provided undependable sup-port for teachers' "face." For example, Theresa's and Donna's principals couldnot be counted on to be considerate of teachers (though they were believedto have the interpersonal skills necessary to convey respect), were likely toavoid classrooms and even contacts with teachers in the hallway, and werethought to overlook problems with student discipline and teacher perfor-mance that teachers judged to be fairly serious. The errors these principalswere least likely to ignore were associated with record keeping, classroomappearance, and lesson plans.

Supenrision Although employed in schools described as having unsolvedinstructional and discipline problems, instead of focusing on these problems,Pattern 2 administrators were thought to spend considerable time on specialprojects that had the eye of their superintendents (e.g., innovative programsand system-level activities such as grant writing and committee work). At thesame time, perhaps as a way to minimize the number of school level demandsthey received while engaged in special projects, surly principals indirectlycommunicated such messages as "I'm too busy," "l'm unfriendly," and "I can'tbe trusted to protect your face."

Surly supervisors were thought to stay away from classrooms and overlook instructional problems because they were busy with other interests,

"Erring Goffman, Interaction Ritual (Garden Citt, NY Anchor, 1967). John W Meyer andBrian Rowan, "institutionalized Organizatlons Formal Structure as Myth and Ceremony," AmencanJournal of Sociology 83 (September 1977) 340-363,John W. Meyer and Brian Rowan, "TheStructure of Educational Organizations," in Environments and Organizations, ed Marshall WMeyer (San Francisco Jossey-Bass. 1978). pp 78-109

378


rather than because they had confidence in teachers. In some cases, they wereperceived as too harried to say "good morning" to the teachers they passed inthe hallway. When surly supervisors finally conducted classroom observations,they were thought to be evaluating teachers, "rather than going in as a persongiving suggestions--as a helper."

Finally, their unpredictable moods, unfriendliness, and failure to giveunbegrudged timune to teachers dampened teachers' desire to initiate interactions. For example, because of her principal's ill humor and lack of visibilityin the school, Donna elected not to go to her when she had problems"Why go to somebody who Is not going to be empathic?" Similarly, althoughTheresa's principal encouraged teachers to "toot their own horn," Theresararely sought her assistance because the principal scolded teachers "as thoughthey were children almost" when she was dissatisfied with their performanceand was thought to be open only to "what's down her alley"

Avoidance. Surly principals demonstrated respect for teachers by askingteachers for advice and opinions on issues, recognizing teachers who receivedany kind of honor, and. asking teachers to handle tasks beyond their usualduties. For example, Donna's principal sometimes asked her to talk to angryparents because she thought they responded better to Donna than to herThese principals also complimented teachers on team work and demonstratedrespect by notifying teachers when they would be conducting classroomobservations.

Pattern 2 supervisors also failed to show respect for teachers on manyoccasions, especially when they were under stress. For example, Theresa'sprincipal frequently failed to greet teachers in the hallway, embarrassed teach-ers in front of others (e.g., exposing teachers who made mistakes by name infaculty meetings); failed to take teachers' suggestions seriously or to listenthoughtfully to teachers' views on issues; and used an angry tone of voice andbelittling words with teachers. Furthermore, Theresa was never sure how herprincipal would react to what she said, even in connection with rather routinerequests and even though Theresa was the "lead teacher" in her school andtherefore presumably well regarded by her principal.

Surly principals were thought to be concerned about instruction, but notbadly enough to alter their own work habits (i.e., use "their time" or taketime away from their more visible projects to help teachers who had prob-lems). These principals ignored serious problems, including "horrendousproblems in the yard and in the lunchroom" and complaints about particularteachers' instructional ability. At the same time, however, they noticed andcorrected selected problems. For example, Donna's principal noticed "lacka-daisical teaching styles," failure to give homework assignments, using a TVthree or four days a week, poor disciplinarians, and defiance (teachers failingto do something they'd been asked to do). Theresa's principal noticed rowdybehavior in the classrooms near her office and whether teachess were standingin the halls between classes as expected.

379


Pattern 3: Imperial Supervisors

The imperial supervisor, exemplified by Jane's second principal, con-ducted regular formal observations of classrooms and instruction, correctedteachers she observed having problems, had low-quality personal relation-ships with teachers, and communicated fairly low respect for teachers. Jane'sprincipal looked for mistakes and appeared to be unsympathetic to teachers'instructional problems. As a result, Jane thought teachers rarely initiatedinteractions with the principal to "tell on themselves." AlthoughJane's princi-pal toured classrooms fairly often, she was thought to be "looking withoutseeing."' Furthermore, she failed to give feedback to teachers who wereperforming satisfactorily (or better), choosing instead to speak to teachersonly when she observed unsatisfactory events. Finally, this principal's attentionto teachers' record keeping and her inflexibility when applying rules wereviewed as "picky."

Supervision. Jane's principal had strong managerial skills and frequentlytoured the school to check what was going on. She was thought to believeshe should observe teachers frequently and check on their performance in avariety of areas because teachers' performance was either not adequate orwould decline without frequent contact with the principal. Jane interpretedher principal's visibility as an effort to find and document faults (a perspectiveconsistent with an assumption that teaching is labor), not to help good teachersbecome better teachers or cheer good work. Jane did not regard her principalas personable and stated that "you would be afraid of her reaction" in face-to-face interactions. Jane regarded her principal as "the last source" she wouldgo to if she needed help.

Characteristics of the imperial supervisor included being businesslike,without favorites, likely to "go by the book," and 'In such a hurry that I wouldnever stop her." Jane's principal did not go to teachers, but called them toher. For example, if teachers were absent, they had to make an appointmentto see her and write out the reason for their absence and sign a form. Ifteachers missed faculty meetings, they were required to listen to audiotapesof the meetings. Finally, in addition to collecting and checking teacher-madetests, she required teachers to submit answers for their test questions Janethought this meant her principal distrusted teachers' ability to answer theirown test questions.

Avoidance Jane thought teachers often fulfilled her principal's expecta-tions; yet, the principal "feels like she has to monitor She treats teachers likechildren who she can't trust to do their responsibility. I don't think she givesthem enough leeway to do what they're supposed to do," Jane viewed her

'2ThomasJ. Sergiovanni, "Expanding Conceptions of Inquiry and Practice m Supervision and

Evaluation," Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis 6 (Winter 1984) 355-365

380


principal's failure to give feedback to teachers about what she observed intheir classrooms (unless she disliked something in a teacher's performance)as evidence that her principal lacked respect for teachers.

Jane's principal noticed and corrected problems teachers had writingtests (e.g., typographical, grammar, and spellirig errors, and unfairness). Shenoticed whether lesson plans and tests corresponded to objectives, bulletinboards were changed every month, and teachers' student attendance recordswere correct. She would be unaware of much in the classrooms, however,because although she toured the school, she "only happened on things," andJane believed that few teachers would talk spontaneously and openly withher.

Pattern 4: Collaborative Superdisors

Collaborative supervisors provided regular (sometimes daily) supervi-sion of instruction, had high-quality relationships with teachers, and showedhigh respect for teachers. Pattern 4 principals were tactful, concerned aboutmaintaining good relationships with teachers, and sought interactions withteachers in their classrooms and elsewhere. They did not characteristicallyoverlook or downplay problems, especially those that affected children, unlessa mistake was thought to be minor or a one-time-only slipup. Instead, prob-lems were discussed and tackled with thoughtful regard for both student andteacher participants. The DOD principals and Elaine's principal illustrated thispattern.

Supenrision. Collaborative principals implemented the district plan forformal evaluations and followed up with frequent informal observations andsupport for teachers in their improvement efforts. Teachers regarded theevaluation process as effective and stated they would supervise teachers aboutthe same way they were supervised. If some teachers were supervised moreloosely than others, they were probably viewed to be especially competentIn general, however, the level of interaction between teachers and administra-tors and the level of confidence or concern for teachers' "face" appeared tobe independent. That is, collaborative principals generally interacted fre-quently with all teachers in order to encourage, recognize accomplishments,keep abreast of what was going on, and discuss with teachers ways to improvethe instructional process.

Frequent interactions between collaborative principals and teachers wereindicated by such comments as: "He speaks to every teacher every day";"she eats linch with teachers"; "she talks to a teacher and follows up withrecognition at a faculty meeting"; she calls in a group of teachers to discussparticular "topics, such as technology or teaching strategies"; "he may askabout anything he is curious about-duty, helping you, a telephone call froma parent, or social things"; and "she always makes an effort to attend socialfunctions."

381

Instnctional Superision and the Avoidance Process

Collaborative supervisors used planned as well as chance meetings withteachers as occasions to listen and respond to teachers' concerns and reinforceschool values. For example, one teacher stated that when her principal "seesyou outside your room, he asks about specific children, specific things aboutyour class." At the same time, Pattern 4 teachers readily sought principals foradvice, information, and help on matters concerning other teachers, parents,discipline, and, to a lesser extent, teaching, curricular, and personal problems.

Avoidance Collaborative supervisors showed respect for teachers bybeing visible, as, ing for teachers' ideas and assistance, including teachers inschool planning, listening to teachers, and supporting teachers. Collaborativeprincipals were good listeners; tolerated differences of opinion and legitimatereasons for doing things in different ways; shared teachers' successes withother teachers; backed teachers when working with parents; and attended toseemingly little things like saying "good morning," asking personal questionsabout teachers' families, and writing notes of appreciation.

In problem-solving interactions, teachers were treated like colleagues bycollaborative supervisors. For example, Elaine's principal didn't make her feelinferior. "She comes in and helps and doesn't make me feel I have a problemShe communicates she understands the problem."

Interactions between collaborative supervisors and teachers were likelyto focus on instructional improvement. Although Pattern 4 teachers thoughtprincipals might overlook some problems, most correctable problems wouldbe taken on jointly by teachers and administrators. Thus, neither staying awayfrom instructional problems nor overlooking instructional problems was awidespread practice Identifying and solving instructional problems wereunderstood as opportunities to improve instruction and promote studentlearning, not as occasions to demean teachers or identify teachers as theproblem.

If a problem adversely affected student learning or the general operationof the school, a collaborauve supervisor "gently" changed a teacher's classroom behavior. For example, these principals noticed numerous mstructionally relevant things, including a teacher demeaning a child, the level of discussion in a classroom, "if we're teaching what we're supposed to be teaching",whether a child can see, is daydreaming, or not on task, a teacher moving tooquickly from the concrete to the abstract (e.g., teaching that 2 + 2 = 4 andputting away the beans), giving incorrect information to children, enforcingthe discipline plan inconsistently; or having a negative attitude. These prob-lems typically were corrected by the principals tactfully telling teachers (in aprivate setting) what they thought about observed events.

Collaborative supervisors rarely or never ignored serious errors of teachers, however, with some difficult problems, one teacher said, "I don't thinkhe ignores them. He continues to hammer away at them." Occasionally aprincipal might not be aware of an error or might consider it trivial or best

382


left to be worked out on its own. In addition, principals might ignore "human"mistakes of teachers, particularly if no one was hurt by an error. The effect ofthe error on students and co-workers was thought to be a crucial considerationin principals' reactions.

A problem might be ignored "if it only happens once, is really a mistake,or a fluke, or possibly if he sees something in passing, not ignore, but nothold anything against the teacher either. Ignore it as far as the evaluationgoes." A principal could "ignore a teacher coming in late" or "a temporaryproblem that is not really detrimental to students or the school and whichshe realihzes will work out. She could temporarily look the other way and ifit doesn't work out, she'd take care of it. No one's up to 100 percent all of thetime."

DISCUSSION

Dimensions of Avoidance

Teachers' descriptions of administrator respect for teachers, "stayingaway," and overlooking covered a range more congruent with Goffman'snotion of the avoidance process than with Meyer and Rowan's narrowerversion of avoidance as "the logic of confidence."'3 According to Goffman,the avoidance process involves shows of respect among group members,staying away from potentially embarrassing situations, and downplaying oroverlooking observed mistakes, if possible, to protect the other's face' 4 Theavoidance process refers to protective behaviors toward group members.When a problem cannot be Ignored, group members engage in a correctiveprocess to restore confidence within and about the group.

Respectfor Teachers. Teachers expressed considerable agreement aboutthe importance as well as the nature of administrator respect for teachersAdministrators were thought to demonstrate respect for teachers when theyspent time v th teachers, observed courtesies such as saying "good morning,"

r tming notes of appreciation, and meeting with teachers in private to discussproblems, asked teachers for advice on instructional and school matters,listened sympathetlcally to teachers' ongoing problems in their classrooms,and provided tactful support and assistance. Teachers associated administratne respect for teachers vith displays of attention, recognition, and assistancein face-to-face interactions.

"Erving Goffman, Interaction Ritual (Garden City, NY Anchor, 1967), John W Meyer andBrian Rowan, lnstltutlonalized Organizations Formal Structure as Myth and Ceremon), Amerncan Journal ofSocolog, 83 (September 197) 340-363,John W Meyer and Brian Rowan, '"heStructure of Educational Organizations," in Envtironments and Organizations, ed Marshall WMeyer (San Francisco: Josasey-Bass, 1978), pp. 78-109.

"Erving Goffman, Interaction Ritual (Garden City, NY Anchor, 1967)

383


The level of respect principals communicated to teachers appeared tobe an important factor In the quality of interactions between teachers andadministrators. Teachers who believed their principals respected them werelikely to initiate interactions and provide their principals with ongoing Infor-mation that would be needed for support acuvitles. Of the prmclpals whowere thought to show respect for teachers, none was described as exceedingdesirable levels of interaction, nor did teachers identify cases in which theythought these principals should have stayed away from the classroom oroverlooked particular errors. Teachers did not report dissatisfaction with highlevels of classroom involvement by respectful principals or with levels ofteacher autonomy. In fact, Pattern 4 teachers said they would supervise prettymuch the way their principals supervised, and Pattern I teachers said theywould prefer additional instructional leadership and more interactions withtheir principals.

When principals were disrespectful toward teachers, teachers describedthe incidents in strong, emotional terms Teachers experiencing disrespectfultreatment from their principals reported unwillingness or reluctance to shareproblems or concerns about work with their principals; they preferred to havefew interactions with disrespectful principals and even considered leaving theschool because of disrespectful displays by the principal.

Staying Away. We found considerable variety in what teachers thoughtadministrators might "stay away from" to protect teachers' "face." Administra-tors were perceived as staying away from potentially embarrassing situationswhen, like Pattern 4 principals, they identified classroom problems, not teach-ers, as the appropriate objects of problem-solving and change efforts. Otherexamples of administrator "staying away" that were associated with respectfor teachers or face-work were the following: encouraging teachers to talkabout problems they were having, listenlng sympathetically, and then offeringsuggestions rather than accusing teachers of making mistakes head-on, tellingteachers when classroom observations would be conducted, giving teacherstime to work out complex problems on their own before administrator inter-ventions were initiated, and not looking or probing too deeply if problemswere rumored.

Our findings call into question whether principals who stay away fromclassrooms are perceived by teachers as staying away because of a logic ofconfidence in teachers, as suggested by Meyer and Rowan.-s Although the"structural avoidance" concept employed by Meyer and Rowan seems applica-ble to Patterns I and 2, teachers in these patterns tended to think principalsstayed away from classrooms because of the demands of other administrativeduties, a lack of instructional expertise, or overinvolvement in extra-school

'John W Meyer and Brian Rowan, "The Structure of Educational Organizauons," in Environ-ments and Organization, ed Marshall W. Meyer (San Francisco. Jossey-Bass, 1978), pp. 78-109

384

Karen R. Okeafor and Maybetb G. Poole

work, not because of a logic of confidence in teachers. John's case cameclosest to fitting Meyer and Rowan's formulation of decoupling and a logic ofconfidence.

All teachers viewed supervision of instruction as an appropriate administrative duty. The primary issue for teachers was how, not whether, supervisionwas conducted. Thus teachers did not typically associate structural avoidance,or staying away from classrooms, with administrator respect for teachers.

Oterlookmng. If school administrators are viewed as threshold guardians,their judgments on what to overlook, what to correct, and how to makecorrections are problematic in view of our findings."6 What was overlookedand for how long was not consistent across schools and might vary within aschool depending upon the individuals and particular issues involved.

In general, principals were perceived to be most vigilant about observingand reacting to the performance of tenure-track teachers during the teachers'first few years of service. However, teachers generally thought their principals'threshold or tolerance for instructional problems was higher than teachers'tolerance levels. Most teachers shared a story of at least one inadequate teachertolerated for too long in his or her school, or told of situations they thoughtwere fairly serious that did not seem to lead to a "corrective process."'

Principals "overlooking" indcluded forgiving teachers who were late forduty, downplaying an incident in which a teacher overslept and missed hisfirst class, and ignoring (seeing, but not confronting teachers about) majorand chronic problems-of classroom discipline and poor teaching, especiallyby tenured teachers (because they were viewed to be "hard to change orterminate") and temporary teachers (because they "wouldn't be here long")Again, what was tolerated in one school (e.g., being late for a duty assignment)was corrected in another.

Some teachers, those in Pattern 4, for example, maintained that theiradministrators rarely overlooked teachers' mistakes, especially when the mis-takes affected student learning or the general operation of the school Forthese teachers, if mistakes were overlooked, they were likely to be "humanmistakes," trivial problems, or mistakes unlikely to occur again

Respect for Teachers and Superzvsion

Our data indicated variations in the nature, level, and stability of respectthat principals showed teachers; what principals stayed away from and forhow long; and what principals ignored and for how long. In addition, teachers'perceptions about supervision and informal relationships between admirlis-trators and teachers varied. When we analyzed our cases by teachers' percep-

'6Donald J Willower, "School Organizations Perspectives in Juxtaposition. Educationa/

Administration Quarterly 18 (Summer 1982): 89-110"'Erving Goffman, Interaction Ritual (Garden City, NY Anchor, 1967)

385

Instructional Supenvison and the Avoidance Process

tions of supervision, informal relationships between administrators and teachers, and the dimensions of avoidance, we found four patterns. backstage, surly,imperial, and collaborative supervisors. These patterns are summarized inTable 2.

Educators constructed supervisory patterns that supported a positive"face" or respect for teachers in Patterns 1 and 4. In Patterns 2 and 3, teachersviewed certain principal behaviors as fundamentally at odds with appropriatetreatment of teachers. Teachers tended.to refer to those undesirable principalbehaviors as disrespectful treatment.

We did not find a straightforward connection across cases between teachers' perceptions of their principals' level of respect for teachers and the levelof formal instructional supervision. As indicated in Figure 1, high levels ofrespect for teachers were demonstrated by both backstage and collaborativesupervisors, yet backstage supervisors engaged in little or no formal supervision, and collaborative supervisors engaged in frequent instructional supervision. On the other hand, surly supervisors and the imperial supervisor wereperceived as communicating minimal respect for teachers, yet surly supervisors spent little time in classrooms, and the imperial supervisor was in classrooms regularly.

Backstage supervisors communicated respect for teachers and supervisedwith "a light touch," fitting Meyer and Rowan's descriptions of decouplingand a logic of confidence." Pattern 1 teachers, however, did not necessarilysee a causal link between administrator respect for teachers and minimalinstructional supervision. Rather, they explained their principals' supervisorylevels as being due to the press of other administrative duties, the "desire tosee good things in the classrooms", school system policies about classroomobservations, and, in the case of Jane's first principal, lack of educationalexpertise.

In spite of infrequent classroom visits by their principals, Pattern 1 teachers thought they were adequately supervised because they had good informalrelationships with their principals, and this led teachers to report and discusstheir concerns and problems with principals backstage on an as needed basis.Nonetheless, Pattern I teachers seemed to think their principals were at leastsometimes "whistling in the dark" when it came to the supervision of otherteachers in their schools.

The theater metaphor has been used as a vehicle for thinking aboutteachers' work (e.g., Palonsky, Rubin) as well as instructional supervision (e.g.,

'ohn W Meyer and Brian Rowan, "lnstiutionallzed Organizations Formal Structure as Mythand Ceremony," Americanournal of Sociology 83 (September 19). 340-363, John W. Meyerand Brian Rowan, The Structure of Educational Organizations," in Ent*ronments and Organizalions, ed. Marshall W. Meyer (San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 1978), pp. 78-109.

386

Table 2. Principals' Patterns of Supervisioli, Relationships with Teachers, and Avoidance Process Indicators,as Perceived by Teachers

Supervision Relationship and RespectPattern Activities Indicators

I Backstage Supervisor

2 Surly Supervisor

3 Imperial Supersisor

4 Collaborative Supervisor

Conducts little or no formalchecking of teachers' work,communicates with teachersthrough personal notes and faceto-face contact

Performs required observations.communicates through memosand faculty meetings

Tours classrooms frequently,provides little feedback toteachers; communicates throughfaculty meetings and memos

Engages in regular, friendl)supervision, has educationalexpertise, "inside" orientation

Personable, friendly, supportive, honest.moderately available, listens to andcollaborates with teachers, willing tobend rules, treats teachers as peers,allows for differences among teachers,teachers "tell on themselves" becauseof hlighquality relationshipUnfriendly. busy on extra schoolprotects, compliments teachers onteamwork, asks teachers for advice.gives teachers tasks outside usualduties, notifies teachers of visits toclasses, often fails to show respect

Impersonal. bus) vith own agenda, failsto communicate respect, checks onrather than helps teachers

Personable. available, honest,supportive, blurs difference betweenformal and informal interactions, visiblein classrooms, listens to and supportsteachers, includes teachers in decisionmaking

Avoidance ProcessIndicators

Ma) avoid whatever is not expresslyraised by teachers, helps teachers whenteachers raise concerns; overlooksmuch if teachers are not receptive andproblems can be tolerated

Avoids interactions with teachers inclassrooms and elsewhere unless seesreasi)n to interact that cannot beavoided or interaction fits own agenda.ignores many problems teachers areconcerned about but that don't fitagenda. corrects problems that relate toagendaAvoids informal interactions withteachers, unaware of many things thatdo not fit agenda because of weakrelationship with teachers and limitedflow of information from teachers,corretts problems that fit own agendaAvoids confrontations with teachers,discusses problem situations toimprove instruction in a caring,supportive manner, may ignore"human" or one-time-only problems,may watch complex situations but giveteachers time to work them out, takeson most correctable problems asproblems to be solved.

I

Ozi

QkcT

i


Figure 1. Types of Supervisory Styles

High

4

BackstageSupervisors

Respectfor

reachers

SurleySupervisors

Low -- _________ InsLow - - - - - - - - - - - -Su

tructionalpervision

- - - - - - - - - -- High

Meyer and Rowan, Pajak) "O Pajak's discussion of how an array of theartnralconcepts can be used to examine the work of central office supervisorsincludes a characterization of supervisors as 'theatrical directors" withresponsibilities in casting, coaching, rehearsing, selecting props, and antiupat-ing audience reactions, as well as "working backstage' to support the produc

9gSee, for example, Stuart B Palonsky, 900 Sbows a Year (New YOrk. Random House, 1986),

LouisJ Rubin, Arttsry in Teaching (New York: Random House, 1985);John W Meyer and BrianRowan, "The Structure of Educational Organizations," In Environments and Organizations, edMarshall W Meyer (San Francisco Jossey-Bass, 1978), pp 78-109; EdWard Pajak, The CentralOffice Supervsor of Curriculum and Instruction (Boston: Allyn and Bacon, Inc., 1989).

Collaborative

Supervisors

I

I ImperialSupervisors

388


tion and make the primary cast "look good."' This characterization is congru-ent with our notion of backstage supervision.

We chose to call Pattern 1 supervisors "backstage" supervisors becausetheir interactions with teachers tended to occur before the start of school,.between classes, or after school hours; but they tended to be initiated byteachers in reaction to events that occurred "on stage" (i.e., in the classroomor while on duty on the playground, cafeteria, or hallway). Principals wereunlikely to come "on stage" unless they were invited by teachers or wereconducting (infrequent) system-mandated observations for evaluation pur-poses. Backstage supervisors were perceived to facilitate, rather than direct,the performances of teachers."

According to Pattern 2 teachers, surly supervisors often failed to showrespect for teachers, avoided close supervision of instructional work, andoverlooked instructional errors. Pattern 2 teachers speculated that overlookingoccurred because their principals lacked time for teachers and gave lowpriority to teachers' classroom concerns, rather than because of faith in teach-ers' competence and self-correcting behavior. Instead of using their time toprovide support for teachers' classroom concerns, surly supervisors engagedin activities more visible to their superordinates.

The imperial supervisor was perceived as distrusting teachers and conse-quently supervising them fairly closely. Her classroom visits were perceivedas disrespectful because she did not act friendly or engage in face-to-faceinteractions wip teachers prior to or after classroom observations unless sheobserved problems with teachers' performance. It was not the observation orchecking that disturbed Jane, but the failure of her prini:ipal to talk to herpersonally. This principal's supervisory style was the inverse of decouplingand a logic of confidence.2 2

Finally, collaborative supervisors were perceived as being highly confi-dent in teachers and frequently interacting with them. In this pattern, princi-pals demonstrated respect for teachers not by staying away from classroomsbut by engaging in frequent, friendly, task-relevant interactions with teachers.Principals and teachers in this pattern jointly engaged in problem finding,problem solving, and trying new procedures, programs, and curriculums.Collaborative supervisors seemed to have educational expertise,view teachingas complex work, and openly discuss the work and how it was done to facilitateeffective performance. When collaborative supervisors observed problems,they were thought to show respect not by hoping that teachers would correctproblems on their own but by employing tact and choosing the right time and

"tEdward Pajak The Central office Supeo of Criculum and Insntruion (Boston: Allynand Bacon, Inc., 1989).

2'Diane M Dunlap and Paul Goldman, "Rethinking Power m Schools," EducatonalAdminms-tration Quarterly 27 (February 1991): 5-29.

"John W. Meyer and Brian Rowan, "The Structure of Educational Organizations," in Envronmentt and Organizations, ed Marshall W. Meyer (San Francisco:Jossey-Bass, 1978), pp. 78-109

389


place to discuss problems (similar to Goffman's description of the avoidanceprocess) in order to help in the corrective process.2 3

Like clinical supervision, our notion of collaborative supervision refersto a rather interactive, democratic, teacher-centered supervisory process.2 4

Our use of collaborative supervision, however, does not include a systematic,formalized process of preobservation conferences, goal setting, observatons,and postobservation conferences. Although all Pattern 4 teachers were for-mally observed several times a year using fairly systematic procedures forthe evaluation process, the everyday problem-solving interactions betweenteachers and principals described by Pattern 4 teachers do not fit a clinicalsupervision model.

Glickman's characterization of collaborative supervision as frankexchanges of ideas between teachers and supervisors is fairly congruentwith our data on the collaborative pattern of supervision.2 5 However, neitherconsensus nor majority rule was always expected, sought, or obtained inprincipal-teacher problem-solving interactions in Pattern 4. Principals werethought of as instructional leaders who treated teachers respectfully andsupportively in the course of instructional improvement efforts, but not astrue hierarchical equals. Consensus was often reached, but was not an absoluterule of interaction. The degree of principal and teacher involvement in Pattern4 interactions varied, but the outcomes of interactions were described assatisfying.

Respect for Teachers and Informal Principal-Teacher Relations

Our data indicate a correlation between principals' respect for teacherson the one hand and informal relationships between principals and teacherson the other. That is, principals identified as respectful of teachers weredescribed as having high-quality informal relationships with teachers. Infor-mal relationships were indicated by person-to-person or face-to-face interac-tions in which teachers perceived their principals as knowledgeable aboutand interested in them as individuals and teachers. Such principals were well-informed about instructional problems at least in part because teachers feltcomfortable "telling on themselves." Thus these principals seemed to bepositioned to exercise considerable influence over the instructional processeven if they were unable or unlikely to make frequent classroom visits, as inthe case of backstage supervisors.

20Erving Goffman, Interaction Ritual (Garden City, NY Anchor, 1967)

NKeith A. Acheson and Meredith D. Gall, Techniques in the Clinical Supervision of Teachers(New York: Longman, 1987); Morris L Cogan, Clinical Supervision (Boston: Houghton Miffin,1973); Robert Goldhammer, ClinicalStperisiton (New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, 1969)

XCarl D. Gllckman, Supetnston of Instracton A Developmental Approacd, 2nd ed.(BostonAllyn and Bacon, 1990).

390


Principals perceived as failing to convey respect for teachers were thoughtto have weak informal relationships with teachers. Presumably, they thuslost innumerable potential opportunities to influence teachers' instructionaldecisions because teachers were reluctant to initiate interactions with themto identify or solve problems. Such principals in essence failed to participatein the informal organization of the school and to recognize and be influencedby individual teachers' views on instructional tasks and ways of accomplishingthem.

CONCLUDING REMARKS

Our study was designed to explore how teachers characterize theiradministrators' supervisory behaviors and administrator-teacher relationships,including how administrators sho M ,'espect for teachers. Analysis of our dataled to the identification of four distinct patterns of supervision based onteachers' views of how they were supervised, how they described relationshipsbetween administrators and teachers, and how administrators were perceivedto demonstrate respect for teachers or carry out the avoidance process.

As an exploratory study relying on interview data from 15 teachers, ourfindings are only suggestive of supervisory patterns that might be found inschools and how administrators treat teachers. Additional teacher interviewsmight produce additional patterns. Other data collection techniques (e.g.,observations) and other data sources (e.g., principals or superintendents) alsomight lead to identifying different or additional patterns.

Extending the study of supervision and the avoidance process also canbe accomplished through in-depth case studies of the four patterns describedhere. Such an approach could lead to an identification of important structuraland personal factors related to the concepts of interest. In addition, this studycould be used to produce a bank of questions for a more broadly basedquantitative study. A quantitative study could lead to an understanding of boththe prevalence of the various patterns and the relationships between suchpatterns and other important personal and structural variables. For example,Meyer and Rowan claim that the presence of a logic of confidence and adminis-trator-teacher relationships such as those described in Pattern 1 leads tohigher commitment and job satisfaction on the part of teachers. 6 Will teachercommitment and job satisfaction vary with the supervisory patterns identifiedhere?

Other organizational factors may be related to supervisory patterns andthe nature of respect shown teachers. For example, the way principals super-vise and treat teachers may be related to how principals' roles are defined(including the number of administrative responsibilities assigned to principals

Cohn W Meyer and Bnan Rowan, 'The Structure of Educational Organizations," inEnimonments and Organtzations, ed. Marshall W Meyer (San Frannsco Jossey-Bass, 1978), pp 78-109

391


and the number and type of support personnel provided for the school); thclevel and quality of instructional leadership provided by the superintendent:the nature of teacher-teacher relationships (e.g., the level of cooperative workbetween teachers and the nature of the avoidance process among teachers);and how supervisors think about the teaching technology.2 7

KAREN R OKEAFOR is Assistant Professor of Educational Foundations and Admin-istration, G-10 South Campus Courts, Purdue University, West Lafayette, IN 47907.

MARYBETH G. POOLE is Principal, Berkeley Manor Elementary School, CampLejeune Dependents' Schools, Camp Lejeune, NC 28542.

"Karen R. Okeafor and Ruth M. Frere, "Administrators' Confidence in Teachers, LeaderConsoleration, and Coupling in Schools, Journal of Research and Development m Education(in press), Brian Rowan, 'Applying Conceptions of Teaching to Organizational Reform, inRestrucutring Schools. 7he Nea Generation of Educational Reform, ed Richard F Elmore (SanFrancisco:Jossey-Bass Publishers, 1990), pp. 31-58

392

Copyright © 1992 by the Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development. All rights reserved.

Documents

INSTRUCTIONAL SUPERVISION AND AVOIDANCE PROCESS