Conflict management and the prospective principal.

Abstract

Aspiring principals were surveyed about their perceptions and training in regard to conflict management. Subjects reported positive attitudes about conflict and were confident in their conflict management skills when dealing with students. Subjects were less confident in their conflict management skills when dealing with parents and supervisors. Conflict management training consisting of authentic, school-based activities should be intensified in principal preparation programs.

Introduction

School leaders encounter conflict on a frequent basis (Martin and Willower, 1981). They are also the primary builders of consensus and collaboration on their campuses (Leithwood, Begley, and Cousins, 1992).Teachers under their supervision encounter conflict in their efforts to educate children (Cornille, Pestle, and Vanwy, 1999). While conflict can be negative and destructive, it can also result in positive changes within an organization (Putnam, 1997). Researchers have identified the knowledge base and skills necessary for the development of successful school leaders. Conflict management is among those skills (Wilmore, 2003). However, few public school leaders have had the support and training necessary to engage in constructive conflict management, further limiting opportunities to teach and model conflict management skills to others (Coleman and Fisher-Yoshida, 2004). This study focused specifically upon the following questions about conflict management skills in future campus administrators:

1. What are the main sources of conflict management training for prospective school leaders?

2. Within which conflict management contexts do prospective school leaders need additional training?

3. What perceptions do prospective school leaders have about the frequency of conflict they will encounter relative to the following sources: students, parents, teachers, and supervisors (superintendent, assistant/associate superintendents, director, and executive directors).

Theoretical Perspective

Several researchers have contributed to the study of conflict management in organizations. Thomas (1976) suggested that five distinct styles of conflict management exist within organizations, including collaboration, accommodation, competition, compromise, and avoidance. Katz and Lawyer (1993) submitted that effective approaches to conflict include reflective listening, maintenance of civility, separation of positions from interests, and the delineation of group goals along with consideration of the interests of all who have a stake in the problem. Deutsch (1994) maintained that unfavorable social contexts required conflict managers to be skillful at removing themselves from the context in order to observe and make conscious decisions. Deutsch and Coleman (2000) developed large-group conflict management methods designed for three major purposes: creating the future, approaching work, and addressing specific problems. Welch (2001) developed the O.F.T.E.N. strategy for conflict management, consisting of observation, feelings, thinking, expectations, and negotiation.

The need for effective conflict management training methods was addressed by Horowitz and Boardman (1994) who recommended formative and summative evaluation of programs to determine the best methods. Bartsch and Cheurprakobkit (2002) determined that principals in their study considered conflict resolution training to be a staff development priority. Cornille, Pestle, and Vanwy (1999) recommended continuing education for teachers, emphasizing the most effective styles of conflict management for different situations. Deutsch (1994) suggested that effective conflict management training must emphasize social and cognitive skills. However, Deutsch maintained that training which focuses upon social and cognitive skills is difficult because of the lack of realistic feedback and because these skills cannot be developed through independent practice (Deutsch, 1994).

Raider, Coleman, and Gerson (2000) focused upon pedagogical considerations for teaching conflict resolution skills in workshop settings. Their workshop modules consist of the following components: overview of conflict, elements of negotiation, communication behaviors, stages of negotiation, culture and conflict, dealing with anger and other emotions, and introduction to mediation (Raider, Coleman, and Gerson, 2000). Studies have shown that subjects who participated in conflict resolution training were significantly more likely to produce positive results in problem solving simulations than untrained participants (Feeny and Davidson, 1996; Davidson and Versluys 1999).

Conflict Management Study Participants

The subjects of this study were graduate students enrolled in the principal certification program of the College of Education at the University of Texas at Arlington. Seventy participants completed usable surveys. Eighty-three percent of the participants were certified staff members employed in large districts, defined as those with student enrollments of greater than 10,000. Fourteen percent of the participants were certified staff employed in medium-size districts, defined as those with student enrollments from 1,600 to 9,999. No participants were employed in small districts, defined as those with student enrollments of fewer than 1,599.

Fifty-six percent were employed in elementary assignments, defined as grade levels ranging from pre-kindergarten to sixth-grade. Seventeen percent were employed in middle school assignments, defined as grade levels ranging seventh to eighth. Twenty-six percent were employed in high school assignments, defined as grade levels ranging from ninth to twelfth. One participant was employed at a Regional Education Service Center. Forty-one percent indicated that they had experience in careers outside of K-12 education. Within this group, most reported prior careers in business, including retail management, merchandising, public relations, and finance. Represented to a lesser degree were those with prior careers in government, health, and social services. Individuals also reported careers in aviation inspection, churches, and the news media.

Instrumentation 

Subjects were asked to complete a three-part survey. The first section consisted of eight yes/no questions regarding participants' training in conflict management. The second section consisted of fifteen questions in which participants were asked to select the best response to each question. Responses consisted of statements about potential conflict involving campus level administrators, students, parents, teachers, and supervisors. Participants were asked to choose statements based upon their perception of their own conflict management skills and their perception of the frequency of conflict situations encountered by principals and assistant principals. The third section of the survey consisted of a questionnaire about demographic information of participants, including gender, age, years of experience in public education, current grade level assignment, school district size, and past employment in careers outside public K-12 education.

Data Analysis

Frequencies were tabulated for each of the eight training response items in the first section. Frequencies were also tabulated for the response choices to the fifteen perception items in the second section, as well as the demographic response items in the third section. Percentages were calculated from the frequency data. The Spearman's rho correlation procedure was employed to identify relationships between training response variables in the first section and demographic variables in the third section of the survey. The same treatment was employed to identify relationships between perception variables in the second section of the survey and demographic variables in the third section.

Findings

The first objective of this study was to identify the main sources of conflict management training for prospective school leaders. Three quarters of study participants indicated that they received conflict management training. School districts were reported as the source of professional development in conflict management for over forty percent of trained subjects. One in five subjects received conflict management training in undergraduate coursework. Approximately one in ten received conflict management training in graduate coursework. Nearly a quarter of respondents received conflict management training from their employers while working outside K-12 public education.

The second objective of this study was to determine the conflict management contexts in which prospective school leaders need more training. Overall, subjects reported positive attitudes about conflict with almost ninety percent indicating that they viewed conflict as an opportunity to solve problems and bring about change. However, over forty percent indicated that while they were somewhat confident in their ability to control their emotions in confrontational situations, they would like more training. While subjects were most confident in their conflict management skills in situations involving students, forty-two percent indicated that they desired more training in student conflict contexts. In contrast, subjects were least confident in their ability to work with irate parents with more than half indicating the need for more training in parent conflict contexts. Similarly, over half of the respondents felt that they needed more training for dealing effectively with conflict situations involving supervisors. Finally, nearly three quarters of subjects expressed the need for more training to develop skills in teaching and modeling conflict management skills to campus staff members.

The final objective of this study was to describe aspiring principals' perceptions of the frequency of conflict relative to specific sources. Subjects perceived that principals encounter parent conflict issues most frequently, student conflict issues somewhat less frequently, and teacher conflict issues infrequently. Subjects perceived principal-supervisor conflict as infrequent or rare. In contrast, subjects perceived that assistant principals encounter student conflict issues most frequently, parent conflict issues somewhat less frequently, and teacher conflict issues on an infrequent basis. Subjects also perceived assistant principal-supervisor conflict to be rare.

A correlation existed between respondents who felt in full control of their emotions when confronted by an irate individual, and those who received conflict management training in graduate coursework (.341 at the .01 level). There was a also a correlation between subjects who received conflict management training from a school district and those who were confident in their ability to teach and model conflict management skills to campus staff members (.401 at the .01 level). No significant correlations emerged with respect to gender, age, district size, grade level, years of experience, or experience professional outside public K-12 education.

Discussion

Subjects trained in conflict management were most likely to have received their training from school districts. They were least likely to have received conflict management training in their university-based principal preparation programs. Because nearly all of the subjects of this study were teachers, the contexts of the school district training were likely to be teacher-focused. It should be noted that subjects were enrolled in a principal preparation sequence which requires an initial internship to be taken in their first semester, as well as a capstone internship to be taken in their last semester in the program. Therefore all subjects were either concurrently enrolled in, or had completed their initial internships. Even so, fewer than ten percent reported that they received conflict management training as part of their graduate coursework. Clearly, they did not view their initial internship in the context of conflict management training.

Ninety-nine percent of respondents reported that they were confident or somewhat confident in their ability to work with disrespectful and disruptive students in a calm, professional manner. However, nearly all of the subjects were teachers training to become campus administrators. Cornille, Pestle, and Vanwy (1999) found that teachers in their study did not change conflict management styles with varying contexts. In other words, teachers applied techniques typically used for student conflict sources to situations involving adult conflict sources. Campus administrators encounter students and parents in different contexts than those of teachers. Administrators may not have the opportunity to establish relationships with students and parents prior to meeting them in the midst of conflict issues. Moreover, principals and assistant principals often encounter students and parents when levels of frustration are very high. Daresh and Male (2000) found that new school leaders experienced a sort of culture shock because they were not prepared for the perceptions of others, nor were they prepared for the intensity of their new positions. If that conclusion is generalized, prospective campus administrators may find that the conflict management skills they employed as teachers will not produce particularly successful outcomes when they move into the assistant principal and principal roles.

While the subjects of this study were confident in their personal conflict management skills, they were considerably less confident in their ability to teach and model conflict management skills. However, a strong correlation emerged between subjects who received conflict management training from school districts and subjects who were confident in their ability to teach and model conflict management skills. As campus leaders, principals and assistant principals must provide teachers with feedback on issues such as classroom management, student discipline, and parent relations. These issues require conflict management skills. Therefore, while it is important for administrators to possess conflict management skills on a personal level, it would also be advantageous for them to develop these skills in teachers, paraprofessional staff members, and students on their campuses.

For the most part, respondents perceived administrator-teacher conflict issues to be somewhat routine or limited in occurrence. Respondents perceived conflict between campus leaders and central administration leaders to be even less frequent. There may be several explanations for these perceptions. These conflict issues may, in fact, be less frequent. However, aspiring campus leaders may not be aware of these conflict issues occurring in their school districts. Administrators at the campus and district levels may try to present a united front to teachers. In cases of campus administrator-teacher conflict issues, great care must be exercised to ensure privacy and confidentiality, especially in regard to personnel issues. Therefore, respondents may not have a realistic perception of principal and assistant principal conflicts involving teachers and supervisors. It is interesting that the aspiring principals in this study perceived the frequency of campus administrator-supervisor conflict to be rare. However, these subjects also felt much less confident in their ability to deal with such conflict situations, and further saw the need for more training in conflict issues involving superintendents, assistant superintendents, directors, and other administrators supervisory to principals and assistant principals.

Recommendations

Barnett (2004) suggested that principal preparation programs may be lacking in authentic, school-based experiences for aspiring principals. In order to change this condition, principal preparation programs should include authentic conflict management training specific to the campus administrator role. University-based principal preparation programs could address these needs by recognizing conflict management as a process skills set, extending across all required courses. Program developers could identify opportunities to expose students to authentic conflict management situations during internship experiences, and require reflective practices for conflict management skills development. Training should include simulations of contexts school leaders are most likely to encounter including volatile student-student situations, teacher-student confrontations, teacher-parent and administrator-parent issues, teacher-principal conflict, and potentially volatile adult group settings such as ARD/IEP meetings. In short, conflict management training for school leaders should address all potential sources of conflict including students, parents, teachers, colleagues, and supervisors. Conflict management training for school leaders should be designed around adult education principles and should include methods for teaching and modeling conflict management skills to teachers, non-teaching staff members, and students.

Further study of school leaders' conflict management skills and training is needed. This study focused upon prospective school administrators enrolled in a principal preparation program. Similar studies of conflict management skills and training of in-service school administrators would provide comparative data, enabling principal preparation programs to improve the conflict management training of future campus leaders. Ultimately, effective conflict management in schools could positively impact school climate, safety, staff retention, administrator retention, and parent/community relations.

References

Barnett, D. (2004). The dark side of school leadership: implications for administrator preparation. Leadership and Policy in Schools, 3, (4), 245.

Barthsch, R. and Cheurprakobkit, S. (2002). School problems and learning about crime and justice systems: principals' views. Educational Studies, 28, (3), pages

Coleman, P. and Fisher-Yoshida, B. (2004). Conflict resolution across the lifespan: the work of the I.C.C.C.R. Theory Into Practice, Winter, 2004. College of Education. The Ohio State University. Pages

Cornille, T., Pestle, R, and Vanwy, R. (1999). Teachers' conflict management styles with peers and students' parents. The International Journal of Conflict Management, 10, (1), 69-79.

Daresh, J. and Male, T. (2000). Crossing the border into leadership: experiences of newly appointed British headteachers and American principals. Educational Management and Administration, 28, (1), 89-101.

Davidson, J. and Versluys, M. (1999). Effects of brief training in coooperation and problem solving on success in conflict resolution. Peace & Conflict, 5, (2), 137-148.

Deutsch, M. (1994). Constructive conflict resolution: principles, training, and research. Journal of Social Issues, 50, (1), 13-32.

Deutsch, M. and Coleman, P. (2000). The Handbook of Conflict Resolution: Theory and Practice. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Freeny, M. and Davidson, J. (1996). Bridging the gap between the practical and the theoretical: an evaluation of a conflict resolution model. Peace & Conflict, 2, (3), 255-269.

Katz, N. and Lawyer, J. (1993). Conflict Resolution. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.

Leithwood, K., Begley, P., and Cousins, J. (1992). Developing expert leadership for future schools. London: The Falmer Press.

Martin, W. and Willower, D. (1981). The Managerial behavior of high school principals. Educational Administration Quarterly, 17, (1), 69-90.

Putnam, L. (1997). Productive conflict: negotiation as implicit coordination, in: C. DeDreu and E. Van De Vliert (Eds) Using Conflict in Organizations London: Sage.

Raider, E., Coleman, S. and Gerson, J. (2001).Teaching conflict resolution skills in a workshop in: M. Deutsch and P. Coleman (Eds). The Handbook of Conflict Resolution: Theory and Practice. San Fransisco: Jossey-Bass.

Thomas, K. (1976). Conflict and conflict management, in: M.D.Dunnette (Ed), Handbook of Industrial and Organizational Psychology. Chicago: Rand McNally.

Welch, M. (2001). The O.F.T.E.N. strategy for conflict management. Journal of Educational Psychological Consultation, 12, (3), 257-262.

Wilmore, E. (2003). Passing the Principal TExES Exam. Corwin Press: Thousand Oaks, CA.

Michael J. Anderson, University of Texas at Arlington

Michael J. Anderson, Ph.D., is Assistant Professor of Educational Leadership and Policy Studies.