Leadership dilemmas of Hong Kong principals: Sources, perceptions and outcomes.

With restructuring characterising many school systems throughout the world, and major change leaving few schools untouched, school leaders are facing major challenges. This study focuses on a group of Hong Kong principals who conceptualise some of their challenges as dilemmas. The paper draws on previous literature to highlight the importance of articulating principals' perceptions of dilemmas in their daily lives, and identifies typologies and categories of dilemmas. It notes that dilemma research to date is grounded in Western examples and cultural settings, and that dilemmas faced by principals in non-Western settings have been ignored. Analysing dilemma situations recounted by Hong Kong principals, we identify the sources, coping mechanisms and outcomes of their dilemmas and examine the relationships between these phenomena. Among our findings are that dilemmas are multifaceted and irresolvable situations, and that principals tend to rely on a narrow range of deeply embedded Chinese cultural values as coping strategies.

Schools throughout the world operate in an increasingly complex and confusing environment. School leaders in particular are exposed to the problems, paradoxes and dilemmas associated with shifting educational landscapes. Recent research into the dilemmas faced by school principals presents a picture of leaders torn between opposite, often contradictory directions, as their roles become less circumscribed and more subject to debate in times of societal change (Dimmock, 1996; Walker & Quong, 1998). It is therefore unsurprising that calls are being made for more insightful approaches for understanding how school leaders make sense of, and manage, their work lives (Dimmock & O'Donoghue, 1997). One way of accomplishing this is to invite principals to conceptualise their working lives in terms of the dilemmas they face. Although a small but growing body of research on how principals perceive their lives in terms of dilemmas has recently begun to appear, such work has to date been restricted to the study of principals in Western countries. Little if any research has been conducted on whether and how school leaders in other cultural contexts perceive their work lives in terms of dilemmas. Accordingly this study attempts to redress this situation through mapping the perceptions of a small number of school leaders for whom dilemmas figure significantly in their work lives in the Asian setting of Hong Kong.

The concept of leadership dilemmas is introduced in the context of emerging research literature on cognitive dimensions of educational administration. Existing literature is referenced in conceptions of dilemmas exclusively from Western cultural paradigms, thereby ignoring dilemmas faced by principals in non Western settings. We then report on a study which identifies the dilemmas experienced by a group of Hong Kong principals. By using a framework generated in part by inductive analysis, dilemma situations recounted by these school leaders are analysed, their sources, coping mechanisms and outcomes are identified, and the relationships between these phenomena are examined.

Contemporary interest in studying dilemmas pertaining to the principalship stems from at least three interrelated sources. The first is an accepted recognition that schools are not rational organisations. Traditional conceptions of schools and school life tend to underestimate the reality of individual differences in values, goals, interests, motivations and understandings of the organisations in which they work and of their roles. The second stimulus for studying principalship dilemmas is the multitude of reforms influencing schools over the last decade. Dimmock (1996) and Cuban (1994) hold that unless we can gain a practical understanding of values conflicts `deeply rooted' in the work of principals, as well as the ways in which they have learned to manage these, schools are unlikely to engage in sustainable reform. Both authors advocate further analysis of dilemmas as a way of probing principals' own cognition, or their `perception of the social and political frames within which they work' (Dimmock, 1996, p. 140; cf. Hallinger, Leithwood, & Murphy, 1993).

A third justification for advocating the study of principal dilemmas is the increased emphasis on values and values conflicts in educational administration (Begley, 1996; Campbell-Evans, 1993; Greenfield & Ribbins, 1993). Begley and Johansson (1997) explicate the values perspective in the following way:

   School administrators increasingly encounter situations where consensus
   cannot be achieved. In some respects, this renders obsolete the traditional
   rational notions of problem solving because administrators must respond to
   values conflict situations that arise, but there may be no solution
   possible that will satisfy all (p.5).

In our schema, such values conflict situations are classified as dilemmas and are investigated by using an inductively developed framework.

Dilemma analysis seeks to gain insight into how principals make sense of, conceptualise and approach the difficulties, contradictions and problems they face in leading schools. Research into this area is relatively recent and has moved towards a better understanding of how principals construct knowledge within their particular contexts (Heck & Hallinger, 1997).

Dilemma analysis in context:Alternative approaches to understanding principalship problem solving and sense making

Dilemma analysis is one way of investigating how principals make sense of and approach difficult situations in their work lives. How principals approach problem solving has long been of interest to researchers and organisational theorists. Early attempts to investigate principal problem solving employed rational decision-making frameworks and relied heavily on positivist methodologies. As understanding and sophistication increased, researchers widened the net of perspectives, frameworks, and methods for studying the principalship; these included multiple variations of the classical rational model, and expanded to include political and micro-political perspectives. While recognising the existence of multiple perspectives on leadership problem solving, we do not attempt to discuss these here. Rather we move to discuss emerging cognitive perspectives on the study of educational administration which we regard as complementary to our dilemmas approach to understanding an important part of the work lives of Hong Kong principals.

Duke (1996) divides cognitive perspectives on educational leadership research into two distinct strands. The first is represented by Gardner's (1995) investigation into how the mind influences ideas and thinking. The other, which relates more directly to our approach, is best represented by Leithwood's (1995) interest in how leaders solve problems and arrive at decisions. Such studies attempt to account for contextual influences on cognition and stress that values pervade the process of problem solving (Heck & Hallinger, 1997). Within this emerging tradition, researchers (e.g. Begley, 1996; Begley &Johansson, 1997) have concentrated on the relationship between social cognition and values, and principals' problem solving and decision making (Hallinger & Heck, 1996). Leithwood's (1995) work, for example, conceptualises principals as problem finders and problem solvers. Cognitive perspectives emphasise the importance of values, and their origins, in making leadership choices. Work examining the place, role, influence, and effect of educational leaders' values on school operation has been widely investigated (for example, see: Begley & Leithwood, 1990; Walker, 1997). According to Leithwood (1995) cognitive research into the principalship is grounded in `how the mind works in terms of hypothetical structures and relationships explaining why people attend to some aspects of the information available to them in their environments' (p. 118). In short, it is rooted in how principals think about practice.

Cognate research has investigated the categorisation and resolution of values conflicts faced by school principals. One such approach (Leithwood, Begley, & Cousins, 1994) posits that school leaders encounter two general types of values conflicts. The first type involves contention between two or more values `for recognition in the formulation of a solution' (p. 108). Within this category, values conflicts take three different forms: conflicts between two or more people other than the principal; conflicts between the principal and other staff; and values conflict concerning the principal alone. The second general source of values conflict occurs between the principal's own strongly held values and actions. This is manifest in a principal's inability to act in a manner consistent with his or her own values. According to Leithwood, Begley, & Cousins (1994) principals resolve values conflicts, formally or informally, either through what they call `deep and strong' ways--for example, careful explanation and referral to formal organisational procedures (typically used by expert problem solvers), or through `surface and weak' strategies, such as seeking out others' interpretations of the conflict or consulting others about solutions (typically used by less expert problem solvers).

As part of a broader study on administrator values, Begley and Johansson (1997) adapted Hodgkinson's (1978) values typology to uncover the type, frequency and intensity of values conflicts encountered by principals, and the specific values underpinning their response to values conflict situations when `personal, professional, and/or organisational values compete for precedence'(p. 5).

Despite advances in understanding gained through investigation into leaders' cognitive processes, much `problem solving' research has relied on principals' reactions to `problems set in a static, fictionalised context ... rather than in a dynamic context' (Hart, Bredeson, Marsh, & Scribner, 1997, p. 4). Heck and Hallinger (1997) support this position and call for research into principal problem solving to move beyond external measurement of internal processes; and for greater recognition that `personal values, political pressures and organisational concerns' are translated into action to solve day-to-day problems (p.9). The dilemma analysis used in this study attempts to investigate how principals approach `actual' problems within the `dynamic and real world' context of Hong Kong.

Studying principalship dilemmas

Although the concept of dilemmas is not new and has previously targeted the moral and ethical aspects of teachers' work (O'Donoghue, Aspland, & Brooker, 1993), little empirical work has been carried out to date on the principalship. Glatter (1994) makes this point, supporting Cuban's call for a practical grounding of dilemmas and claiming researchers `rarely examine real situations of conflict and tension in which there are genuine dilemmas to confront' (p.2). This situation is beginning to be tackled by researchers such as Dimmock (1996) in Australia, Grace (1995) in Britain and Murphy (1994) in the United States.

Although many dilemmas are perennial (Glatter, 1994), they are, by nature, individual contestations between important values. Although mostly underpinned by conflicting values, dilemmas often surface in organisational structures and relationships. A number of researchers have attempted to clarify the nature of dilemmas. Berlak and Berlak (1981), for example, recognised dilemmas which embraced sociological, political and educational dimensions. Winter (1982) conceptualised dilemmas in sociological terms as contradictions, classifying them as ambiguities, judgements and problems. He distinguished three types according to the degree of control an individual feels he or she has over a situation. For example, ambiguities are defined as beyond the control of the individual, judgements can be dealt with using skill, care and knowledge, whereas problems are only partially amenable to control since taking action in one aspect leads to problems in other domains. Winter's category of `problems' approximates to the conception of `dilemma' adopted in this study. However, while Winter's (1982) categories are useful, they are restrictive in limiting understanding of dilemmas to the degree of controllability individuals possess in handling them. The schema also attempts to categorise dilemmas into discrete categories, thereby denying their possible interactive or interrelated nature.

Further clarification of the nature of educational problems and their more extreme form of dilemmas is provided by Holmes (1965) who suggested that their origin lay in asynchronous changes taking place in education and society. Dimmock (1996) applied this idea to principalship dilemmas related to restructuring in Australia stating, `a dilemma in restructuring may be conceptualised in terms of asynchronous change within and between ... norms and values, institutional practices and structures, and resources' (p. 144). For the purposes of this paper, we define dilemmas as conflictual situations that demand irreconcilable choices because of the existence of competing, deeply rooted values. As previously recognised, although dilemmas are grounded in values, they often emerge from structures, resources and relationships, and interactions between these. Dilemma situations contain elements of contradiction, conflict, paradox and inconsistency in the ways they are perceived, and in how they may be solved, since the selection of a course of action, or inaction, to deal with one aspect automatically leaves other aspects unsatisfied or more problematic.

Despite the increasing volume of research into values conflicts and principalship dilemmas, little of this work has explored dilemmas faced by principals in Asian settings. This reflects part of a wider neglect of the influence of culture on educational leadership (Dimmock & Walker, 1998b), which has a number of consequences. First, unless research is conducted to identify the dilemmas of principals in non-Western countries, it is likely that the all too prevalent assumptions that Western-generated research findings are applicable to all settings will continue to be made (Walker, Bridges, & Chan, 1996). Secondly, if one considers the different cultural and social contexts of communities, such as those in Asia, the prospect of universally shared values becomes untenable, implying that the shape of leaders' lives and the meanings attached to leadership will expectedly vary (Dimmock & Walker, 1998a). Thus the form of values conflict which underpins dilemmas in various contexts cannot be purposefully investigated if research exclusively reflects an ethnocentric bias towards Western traditions and Judaeo-Christian thinking and logic (Begley & Johansson, 1997). Put simply, dilemma research conducted purely in Western contexts disenfranchises large groups of principals, denies the identities of important racial, ethnic and national groups and risks restricting understanding to narrowly, even arrogantly, defined parameters.

A robust case exists for a research focus on dilemmas experienced by principals in different countries, the importance of studying and identifying these dilemmas, schema for categorising dilemmas and, finally, ways in which principals cope with the dilemmas they face. As suggested by Cuban (1992, 1994), we need to learn first hand the practical dilemmas faced by principals, how they cope and the various outcomes brought about by particular actions or inactions. There is also a need to map the multidimensional nature of dilemmas by identifying their sources and the conflict of values which underpin them. This study purports to meet this agenda by widening the research focus to examine the dilemmas faced by principals in Hong Kong (for explication of the Hong Kong context see Dimmock, 1998; Dimmock & Walker, 1997; Walker & Dimmock, 1998).

Method

This investigation aimed at identifying the characteristics of principals' dilemmas by considering four guiding questions: What dilemmas, if any, do Hong Kong principals face in the course of their work lives? What are the sources or roots of their dilemmas? How do the principals manage or cope with dilemmas? And what are the outcomes of their coping or managing strategies? Importance was also attached to the relationships between the four questions.

A qualitative approach using naturalistic methods of inquiry was adopted as the methodological paradigm for the study. According to Miles and Huberman (1994), qualitative research aims `to explicate the ways people in particular settings come to understand, account for, take action, and otherwise manage their day to day situations' (p. 7). In addition, Lincoln and Guba (1985) suggest that naturalistic inquiry is most appropriate when multiple constructed realities exist. The dilemmas experienced by a group of Hong Kong principals constitute such multiple realities.

The principals Fifteen principals were selected for interview using first criterion and then snowball or chain sampling over a period of approximately six months. Snowball or chain sampling aims to identify `cases of interest from people who know people who know what cases are information rich' (Miles & Huberman, 1994, p. 28). Initially a group of principals with good English language proficiency and who were active in the educational community were asked whether they would be willing to talk about their `lives' in schools and any difficulties they faced. A number of them agreed to a preliminary interview. A full exposition of the interview protocol is set out later in this methodology section.

The number of principals interviewed was not determined beforehand and sampling was completed only when data from new respondents were replicating that from earlier participants. The aim of the study was not to uncover all possible dilemma situations. By definition, what is a dilemma for one principal may not be for another. Besides, the aim of this study, in line with naturalistic inquiry, was not to generalise to broader populations. Rather, it was to uncover situations and relationships between constructs which serve as explanations for reality. As Firestone (1993) notes, `the most useful generalisations from qualitative studies are analytic, not sample-to-population' (cited in Miles & Huberman, 1994, p. 28).

The principals interviewed ranged in their experience of principalship from three to seventeen years. They had been in their present schools for varying periods from one to seventeen years. The fifteen principals included twelve males and three females. Four were principals of secondary schools and eleven were principals of primary schools. All of the principals interviewed were heads of aided schools.(1) The secondary schools had approximately 1200 pupils, and most of the primary schools had enrolments of around 1500 students attending on a split-shift morning/afternoon basis. The study did not set out to differentiate between the dilemmas faced by primary and secondary principals. There is, however, one difference between primary and secondary schools which is worth mentioning. The structure of primary schooling involves separate morning (AM) and afternoon schools (PM) which share the same building (this dual sharing is not found in the secondary system). The participating principals represent both AM and PM primary schools as well as secondary schools, thereby presenting a range of dilemma situations and perspectives.

The interviews Data were collected through face-to-face interviews which took the form of a `conversation piece, not an inquisition' (Simons, 1982, p. 37; Taylor & Bogdan, 1984). To overcome minor language difficulties experienced by some principals, six of them were interviewed in pairs by one interviewer, and the remainder were interviewed individually either by one or both interviewers.

Interviews were conducted in three phases: open-ended; semi-structured; and structured. In the first phase (open-ended), principals were invited to talk about their lives in schools in general terms and the difficulties they believed they faced. This phase was largely unstructured and conversation was used to encourage principals to think about their work lives in school. Once they were comfortable with the conversation, the second phase was introduced whereby semi-structured questions were used as prompts to seek out whether they experienced problems, difficulties and dilemmas. The prompts were always influenced by the principals' own stories. If necessary, the researchers provided a generic, simplified definition of a dilemma situation in a Hong Kong school (using stories from other principals) to help them understand the concept. It should be noted that, at this stage, some of the principals did not perceive their lives in terms of dilemmas. Their right to this opinion was made clear throughout our conversations. When this happened, we invited the respondents to clarify their perceptions and terminated the interview. The phenomenon of a small minority of principals who conceptually did not recognise dilemmas is worthy of separate and subsequent investigation. For the majority of principals who did conceptualise their work lives in terms of dilemmas, we moved forward to the third phase of the interview. In short, we only moved to phase three, as described below, when principals could themselves readily identify and recognise dilemmas and were willing to accept that dilemmas were an important part of their work lives. The third phase of the interview delved into the principals' dilemmas, including the background to the dilemmas, how they had coped with or managed the situations, and what, if any, outcomes had resulted. A more structured interview was adopted, specifically targeting the guiding questions set out earlier. All interviews were tape recorded and subsequently transcribed.

Analysis Analysis occurred at each stage of data collection. That is, analysis took place after the first interview; this analysis was then used to shape the second interview and so on (Bogdan & Biklen, 1992). This process of inductive analysis meant that formal analysis is almost complete by the end of data collection. The sequence of `interview followed by analysis' enabled interpretations to emerge and to be cross-checked on an on-going basis. Through inductive analysis, an iterative process facilitated the cross-checking of data against the rudimentary framework, enabling the framework to be progressively refined. The result was the construction of a number of `dilemma maps' for aiding analysis of the dilemmas. The analytic framework emerged from a combination of the principals' own accounts of their dilemmas and the researchers' interpretations. The maps, in turn, allowed the relationships between dilemma situations, their sources, how principals managed the dilemmas and the outcomes of the dilemmas to be explored in greater detail. The framework is discussed below.

Framework for analysing dilemma situations

Constructing dilemma maps involved the fracturing of dilemma situations in order to seek relationships and connections. The maps allowed the principals first, to reflect upon the intricacies of their own dilemmas, including how they made sense of, and coped with them. Secondly, the maps were useful for the researchers in attempting to interpret principalship dilemmas in terms of their sources, coping strategies and outcomes. The framework is shown in Figure 1. It is presented before the analysis of dilemmas section, but it should be borne in mind that the framework was refined through an iterative process of inductive analysis.

[ILLUSTRATION OMITTED]

Data collection and analysis began with the principal describing his/her work life, and particularly the major challenges (phase one of the interviews). It gradually moved to whether the principal perceived these as dilemma situations (phase two of the interviews). The situation was then `unpacked' by identifying the elements of the dilemma (phase three of the interviews). The principal was asked how he or she makes sense of the dilemma in terms of its constituent elements--that is, the factors which comprise the dilemma, such as staff dissatisfaction or policy imposition. Discrepancies between the principal's perception and the researchers' interpretation were noted. Once the dilemma situation and the constituent elements had been clarified, we sought to explore the sources of the dilemma. These, for example, involved conflicting values, structural arrangements, and teaching and learning beliefs.

The next stage was to investigate how the principal had coped with or managed the dilemma-- the action or inaction taken and how the constituent elements and sources of the dilemma may have influenced this. Why had the principal coped with the dilemma in a particular way? The final stage of the analysis considered the outcomes of the dilemma, and the consequences of how it was managed. Four outcomes of the dilemmas emerged as experienced by principals in this study-- the creation of another dilemma, the return of the existing dilemma, a magnification in complexity of the existing dilemma, and a lessening of the dilemma. Consideration of outcomes allowed both the practitioner and ourselves to `backward track' the dilemma and consider, in tandem with the elements, sources and coping strategies. Although not pursued in this study, this process may also aid discussion and whether the dilemma could have been managed differently.

From the array of dilemma maps constructed, three were selected for presentation on the basis of their analytic interest. In line with the sampling procedure and methodology employed, we do not claim that these dilemmas are typical or representative of other Hong Kong principals' dilemmas. We do claim, however, that they provide a legitimate and authentic picture of how this group of Asian principals conceive some of their dilemmas. In the following section, we present a more detailed analysis of dilemmas faced by three of the principals interviewed.

Three dilemma situations of Hong Kong principals

Dilemma I:The expatriate teacher

The sources of this dilemma present a coalescence of cultural, structural, and teaching and learning beliefs. An expatriate teacher had his own strong ideas about how to conduct his teaching in the school. These clashed with the conformist position of his immediate supervisor, the vice-principal (VP), who regulated the `accepted ways of working' in the school. The principal interpreted the dilemma as stemming from the educational training of the expatriate teacher, emphasising openness and autonomy, an approach which clashed with the traditional customs of this Chinese school which placed value on order, hierarchy, harmony, and avoidance of open conflict. Disagreements quickly escalated to open conflict, placing the principal in a dilemma. He had worked with the VP for many years and respected her dedication and work, and, as he added, `she was senior to the teacher'. Above all, the principal saw it as very important to maintain a close, harmonious relationship with the VP. On the other hand, the principal felt the teacher was an asset to the school and was a very good practitioner. Although the principal talked to both parties, proposing compromise, the conflict became more bitter and attracted the attention of other staff. He felt that no more formal action than this could be taken while expressing a continued concern for maintaining harmony. Eventually life for the teacher became so uncomfortable that he resigned. As a result, harmony was maintained with the VP and other staff, but the principal was left disappointed and grappling with contradictory feelings. In the principal's words:

   I was sorry to see the teacher go because of his excellent classroom
   ability, but in a way I was relieved because it released some of the
   fighting which had been disrupting the panel (department).

   Most staff agreed that he had to go in order that we have a more harmonious
   situation between the teachers. In Chinese we say `two tigers cannot get on
   together'.

[ILLUSTRATION OMITTED]

Initially the principal managed the dilemma by discussing the situation with those involved in an attempt to reach some form of compromise. When this failed, he withdrew from active involvement and stood back, counselling the VP when necessary. He then concentrated his action on communicating with the VP, but could do little for the teacher. His main concern seemed to be to maintain good relations with his senior staff. Despite the coalescence of dilemma sources, the dominant coping strategy related to cultural values and maintaining relationships, rather than technical considerations of teaching and learning. The principal did not ignore the situation, or abdicate total responsibility; staff.knew he was concerned and that the VP had his support. This strategy probably contributed to the teacher's resignation but, for all that, there was not a clear and satisfactory resolution to the dilemma.

For the principal, in both personal and organisational terms, the dilemma had adverse outcomes. He was unhappy that he had a lost a good teacher and, as a result of the conflict, the School Management Committee (SMC) decided to avoid future conflicts by discontinuing the practice of accepting expatriate teachers from a non-profit-making, religious organisation. This left the principal in the difficult position of being unable to staff the school to the standard he desired. The particular coping strategy solved part of the principal's dilemma, but left him feeling disappointed and actually posed for him a new set of dilemmas which had not previously existed.

Dilemma 2:A controversial promotion

The coalescence of sources of this second dilemma germinated from a combination of structural, cultural and personal factors. The supervisor requested the principal to promote a teacher who was a relative of his. Neither the principal nor other teachers believed the teacher deserved such promotion. In structural terms, the school supervisor has considerable formal and informal power in terms of staffing and school operation, as do other members of the SMC. If this structural arrangement had not existed, the dilemma situation would have been avoided, and the principal alone would have been able to make the decision as to whom to promote, based on performance criteria. The principal explained that he was conscious that the supervisor and SMC had the power to fire him. Although he was never threatened with this action, the fact that he was aware of this authority over him appeared to accentuate his dilemma. The principal explained, `By law -- Hong Kong law, if half the members of the SMC are dissatisfied with the headmaster, he is fired'. The final element of the dilemma was perhaps the most influential, especially his coping strategy. The principal saw the dilemma in terms of respecting hierarchy, maintaining harmony and preserving relationships with both teachers and the supervisor. He saw himself in a no-win situation. To promote the teacher would alienate staff and to refuse would, at the very least, disturb his harmonious relationships with his superiors. He linked the need for harmony to Chinese cultural values: `I think harmony is culture. Harmony is central to Chinese culture, I honestly believe that in our Chinese society, harmony comes first'. What appeared to give him the most dissonance was the possibility of harmony being disturbed by conflict. Whichever way he turned, harmony was bound to suffer. If he promoted the teacher, he would lose the respect of other teachers, but would satisfy the supervisor and SMC. If he did not promote the teacher he might incur the wrath of the supervisor and SMC, but enjoy the confidence of his staff. He expressed his feelings, thus:

   The need for harmony makes me feel lonely as a principal. I was annoyed
   that I was pushed to promote one teacher by one of my managers ... this
   made me very upset. I tried to put forward my point that we want equity, we
   want performance. I put all of these to my supervisor -- to gain harmony.

The principal chose a coping strategy which acquiesced with the request from his supervisor. Somewhat misleadingly, he thought this to be a `compromise'. His choice of coping strategy illustrates the apparent importance of hierarchy and respect for position so deeply embedded in Chinese society. The primordial consideration was maintenance of harmony with the supervisor, his superior, rather than faith kept with his staff. This was, however, an unsettling decision for the principal in that it had detrimental effects on his relationships with teachers, teacher-teacher relationships and even on how he felt about himself. He explained his position, thus:

   The rest of the teachers felt uncomfortable with the decision. I tried to
   explain it, but how can you explain? I can't say a teacher got promoted
   because he was related to a school manager ... it is not fair to them -- to
   the rest of the teachers, because promotion is not based on performance.

As a consequence he believed that he had lost some trust and respect from staff and that teachers were no longer `as happy and co-operative as they once were ... and were no longer working as much like a team'. In short, because of his decision, the operation of the school had been adversely affected. He believed the harmony between the teachers had been disturbed, and that this now presented him with another dilemma, namely, how to recapture the harmony. He felt that the coping strategy had eventuated in an unsatisfactory outcome, from both a personal and organisational viewpoint, and that in some ways he was back to his original dilemma of balancing harmony and positive relationships with both the supervisor, the SMC and the teachers. Indeed his original dilemma not only still existed, but was now more complex.

[ILLUSTRATION OMITTED]

Dilemma 3: Obeying a more `senior' principal

This dilemma derived from a tension between cultural values and the principals' beliefs about teaching and learning, the dilemma situation manifesting in the bi-sessional school structure. The dilemma would not have emerged had it not been for this structure. The principal, a recent graduate from a local university, believed that the school could better meet the needs of the students by revamping the student reporting system to be more flexible in reflecting individual differences. She secured the agreement of most of her staff. However, the AM (morning) principal, her senior in terms of age, experience and the informal hierarchy, disagreed with what he saw as progressivism. When the PM (afternoon) principal went ahead and introduced the change, she was, as she put it, `informally, but obviously punished'. Her dilemma was now accentuated, since if she continued doing things her own way she risked further `punishment', but if she discontinued the practice, she risked a lowering of staff morale. As the principal stated, `If I do everything he (the AM principal) says, my teachers would not be happy'. The principal's chosen coping strategy was to back down and accept the seniority and power of the AM principal, claiming, `I just have to live with it, nothing will change'. This did not imply that she would never try anything new again, but that the situation would always exist, and that she was aware of, and concerned about, the possible consequences. As the principal stated, `If I do not keep harmony (with the AM principal), I will be punished'.

The principal's management of the dilemma, namely, accepting the status quo, produced an outcome which not only had the effect of confirming the power of the AM principal, but adversely affected the morale of the PM teachers. As she put it:

   Gradually I think that my teachers feel that they are inferior in a sense
   and that the AM teachers are their bosses. So we have to ask their
   permission for everything before we can do it. At least we have to consult
   the principal and if he likes it then we can do it, if not, then we have to
   stay as we are.

As was the case for Dilemma 2, the roots of this dilemma reflected cultural, structural and professional dimensions. The initial coping strategy was to press on with the change, driven by a commitment to certain teaching and learning beliefs, and to maintain staff harmony and morale. The outcome of this strategy, although unintended, was an adverse effect on the otherwise harmonious relationship with the senior principal, which in turn, according to the PM principal, led to informal but overt punishment -- therefore escalating the dilemma. The new situation caused the principal to rethink her position, at least temporarily, and to fall back into line with the AM principal's beliefs. Her reaction was driven equally by fear of sanction and respect for seniority. This, in turn, harmed staff morale and harmony and created a loop back to the initial dilemma, leaving it unresolved and even more complicated.

A further element hidden beneath the more obvious dilemma situation was that the PM principal was attempting to introduce what were perceived as progressive, Western-based, ideas into a more traditional Chinese cultural setting. This phenomenon was reflected in a number of dilemmas (including Dilemma 1) where tensions arose between new and traditional approaches to school operation and teaching and learning.

[ILLUSTRATION OMITTED]

Discussion

In this section we consider the nature, source, coping strategies and outcomes of principals' dilemmas in Hong Kong. The sources, elements and outcomes of the dilemmas were multifaceted and were difficult to disentangle. Nevertheless there appeared to be a number of commonalties which we now discuss. First, the dilemmas did not stand alone; that is, they were normally complex and related to multiple sources. Indeed it seems that few dilemmas would have been perceived as such if not for these multiple sources which were difficult to distinguish. When seen in this light, dilemmas are a contributory factor to the confused and complex nature of school leadership (Patterson, 1992). A typical example of this complexity was provided by the combination of cultural values, structural arrangements and teaching and learning beliefs which underpinned most of the three case dilemmas cited in this paper. In Dilemma 2, for example, the governance structure of the school led to pressure being placed on the principal, thereby creating the initial tension. The tension, however, was also related to, and complicated further by, the principal's values of harmony and respect for hierarchy, values found to be very pre-eminent in Chinese culture. Cheng and Wong (1996), for example, suggest that, in Chinese societies, group harmony is seen as more important than individualism (also see Hofstede, 1980). It is assumed that maintenance of group harmony is in the best interests of the individual. They continue, `This is quite different from the Western notion of the individual-group relationship where the group cannot thrive unless and only after individuals in it thrive' (Cheng & Wong, 1996, p. 38). The need for harmony is intricately woven into most dilemma situations in Hong Kong, reflecting a primary desire across Chinese societies for harmonious relationships (for example, see Bond, 1991; Kirkbride, Tang, & Westwood, 1991). According to Bond (1992), the disturbance of interpersonal harmony through conflict can cause lasting animosity in Chinese cultures.

If most of the dilemma situations we uncovered were rooted in the need for harmony, they equally involved respect for hierarchy and seniority. According to Cheng (1995), groups and organisations in Chinese societies are more likely to be ordered around hierarchical sets of relationships and the rule of behaviour which govern them, than are their Western counterparts. Fei (cited in Cheng & Wong, 1996, p. 38) holds that Chinese societies are governed by a hierarchy `where people are born into a certain position in the social hierarchy, and behave accordingly. This is in contrast with societies in the West where, in an association configuration, social structures and norms are formed acceding to ad hoc needs among individuals'. The values of harmony and hierarchy are about maintaining relationships and power structures. In Chinese societies, and as reflected in the dilemmas we studied, relationships are paramount and play a predominant role in peoples' lives, Redding (1977), in fact, suggested that organisational behaviour in East Asian organisations was relationship-centred, whereas in the West it tends to be `ego-centred'.

The principal in Dilemma 2 was torn between his desire for harmony with his superiors and with his staff, a perceived no-win situation. He was also concerned that the teacher was not upholding satisfactory standards of performance in the school, although at the back of his mind, he was mindful that the SMC had authority to terminate his own employment. As with other dilemmas, it was difficult to disentangle the various sources. Some sources were more overt than others. In Dilemma 2, the supervisor's direct request for the teacher's promotion and the candidate's inadequate performance were overt; yet other sources, such as fear of termination of his own contract if he upset the SMC and respect for harmony, were more covert and personal to the principal. Other sources resulted from pressures external to the principal, but these often appeared to combine with the principal's own values system to produce the dilemmas. Values conflicts, either between the principal and others, or within the principal's own set of values, were pre-eminent in all dilemmas.

In summary, the dilemmas appeared to be rooted in a complex mix of factors, including school structure, personal considerations, and beliefs about teaching and learning. In all cases, they were underpinned by conflicts of values which, in the context of Hong Kong, naturally reflected a number of dominant Chinese values (see Bond, 1996; Hofstede, 1991). Furthermore some of the dilemmas were heightened by elements of a `culture clash'; that is, they were caused or accentuated by the attempt to import Western beliefs and values about education into a traditional Chinese cultural setting. When these `different' values clashed, new dilemmas resulted or existing ones worsened. Evidence of such is seen in Dilemmas 2 and 3.

Emergent patterns were discernible in how principals coped with their dilemmas and the ways in which coping strategies related to the sources of a dilemma. The range of coping strategies reflected in the cases (including those not reported here) included: transferring a problem teacher to another school; attempting to compromise; withdrawing from direct involvement (or `hoping it will sort itself out'); acquiescing with superiors' wishes: adopting a laissez faire, fatalistic attitude of inaction; creative insubordination (Haynes & Licata, 1995); appealing to school tradition and mission; resorting to logical and emotive argument; and delaying decisions. Coping with dilemmas was never easy and involved unwinnable choices based on competing values. Although the dilemmas we examined were multifaceted in terms of their sources and elements, coping mechanisms were more strongly associated with the predominant cultural values. Even these cultural values appeared to be implicitly arranged in a hierarchy, with harmony, hierarchy, seniority, and age, rather than teaching and learning beliefs or personal reasons, predominant. For example, in the case of Dilemma 1, the basic cultural value was the need for harmony with the more senior teacher; in Dilemma 2 and eventually in Dilemma 3, it was the need for respect for, and harmony with, the supervisor and SMC. Coping strategies in these cases suggest the existence of a hierarchy of values in this Chinese society, with hierarchy, seniority, and harmony predominant.

Although harmony appeared paramount in consideration of all dilemmas, the problem for principals was to achieve a balance of harmony within themselves, within their school, between and with teachers, and with their superiors and the wider community. Achieving harmonious relationships between so many constituents was a problem of image building. Although the achievement of harmony was at the centre of most coping strategies, it demanded a delicate balancing act by principals, as exemplified in Dilemma 3. Coping strategies invariably required that choices be made as to who were the most important constituents with whom to maintain harmony. In dealing with this aspect, most principals adhered to the formal system of seniority in their communities. Further study of this aspect is important, as is indicated by Begley and Johansson's (1997) study attempting to identify the types and levels of values used by Canadian and Swedish principals for solving problems.

This study suggests that coping mechanisms assumed many different forms, which frequently derived from cultural characteristics and usually resulted in the status quo being maintained. Such conclusions raise a number of questions. First, if the pursuit of harmonious relationships is the predominant driver of coping strategies, even when dilemma sources are multifaceted, how does this influence the prime function of the school -- teaching and learning? Secondly, if principals tend to cope with dilemmas through allegiance to the system of seniority, can they secure the commitment of teachers towards school improvement? In other words, what implications follow for teacher empowerment, involvement and dedication to the school? Thirdly, is it possible for principals to develop alternative coping strategies, when the powerful cognitive and practical influence of cultural values, such as harmony and seniority, are held in such high esteem? Fourthly, how does allegiance to such cultural factors affect principals' feelings about their jobs and work lives? Finally, are principals' dilemmas and coping strategies likely to change with the introduction of restructuring policies designed to re-configure the roles, rules and relationships in Hong Kong's school system?

Principals' coping strategies resulted in a number of outcomes, none of which appeared entirely satisfactory or proved a resolution of the dilemma. The outcomes resulting from the cases can be grouped into four categories. The first category centred on the creation of a new dilemma (Dilemmas 1 and 2); the second category resulted in a return to the existing dilemma situation (Dilemma 3); the third category involved a magnification of the complexity of the existing dilemma (Dilemmas 2 and 3); and the fourth involved a lessening of the dilemma (Dilemma 1). Outcomes, like dilemmas, were multidimensional, often involving new dilemmas, variations of existing dilemmas, or returns to the original dilemma. Dilemmas could proliferate and were rarely resolved, either in organisational or personal terms. In some dilemmas, the outcome of one dilemma situation led to multiple organisational dilemmas; in others to a personal dilemma (unloading an incompetent teacher on another school) and, in the case of Dilemma 2, to both organisational and personal dilemmas. However, this distinction between organisational and personal dilemmas, although convenient from an analytical point of view, may be dubious, since we found that few principals differentiated in this way. This itself may be worthy of further study. Dilemmas could not be completely resolved and principals were invariably left feeling dissatisfied and frustrated. Moreover, their attention was continuously attracted by new developments in dilemma situations, the endurance and prolongation of which may also be worth further examination. The multidimensionality and growth of dilemmas support recent suggestions that many principals' lives are unpredictable and constantly beset by tension (Walker & Quong, 1998).

Conclusion

This study set out to identify and examine dilemmas faced by school principals in Hong Kong. Research on principals' dilemmas had previously been confined to Western settings. Most dilemmas appeared multifaceted in terms of their source and their constituent elements. In almost all cases, the sources of dilemmas comprised a combination of structural, professional, cultural, and relational `drivers'. Cultural values, mainly related to harmony, seniority, and relationships, were prominent in interacting with other sources to cause or complicate dilemmas and to configure coping strategies. In no case could a dilemma situation be attributed to a single source. Dilemmas appeared to grow from other dilemmas, with one situation feeding another, thereby increasing complexity and making management more difficult to manage. In some cases, the outcomes resulting from management strategies led directly back to the original dilemma. In this study of Hong Kong principals, their management and coping strategies were most commonly related to specific deep-seated cultural values -- in particular, the need to maintain harmony in relationships with others in the school community. We advocate more international studies of this type in order to generate the possibility of cross-cultural comparisons between principals' perceptions of the major challenges confronting them.

Keywords

Chinese culture   leadership                 principals
coping            non-Western civilisation   research

Note

(1) The majority of primary and secondary schools in Hong Kong are public rather than private. However, only a small number are managed directly by the government (these are called `Government schools'). Aided schools are run by voluntary agencies, such as religious and charitable organisations, called sponsoring bodies, under a code of aid (`Aided schools'). The code of aid sets out the procedures to be followed in return for public funds. The sponsoring body, which must be an incorporated non-profit making organisation, contributes the initial cost of furnishing and equipping the premises, nominates the first supervisor, and has input into subsequent changes of management committee membership. Each aided school has its own management committee, which employs staff and is responsible to the Director of Education for the operation of the school and quality of education provided. One manager is registered as the supervisor, whose main role is to be the point of contact between the management committee and the Department of Education. Supervisors and the management committee have scope for exercising considerable influence in all facets of school operation should they so desire.

References

Begley, P. (1996). Cognitive perspectives on the nature and function of values in educational administration. In K. Leithwood, J. Chapman, D. Corson, P. Hallinger, & A. Hart (Eds.), International handbook of educational leadership and administration (pp. 551-588). Dordrecht, Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Press.

Begley, P. & Johansson, O. (1997). Values and school administration: Preferences, ethics and conflicts. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association, March, Chicago, IL.

Begley, P. & Leithwood, K. (1990). The influence of values on school administrator practices. Journal of Personnel Evaluation in Education. 3, 337-352.

Berlak, H. & Berlak, C. (1981). Dilemma of schooling, teaching and change. London: Methuen.

Bogdan, R.C. & Biklen, S.K. (1992). Qualitative research for education: An introduction to theory and methods (2nd ed.). Needham Heights, MA: Allyn & Bacon.

Bond, M. (1991). Cultural influences on modes of impression management: Implications for the culturally diverse organisation. In R. Giacalone & P. Rosenfield (Eds.), Applied impression management: How image-making affects managerial decisions. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

Bond, M. (1992). Beyond the Chinese face: Insights from psychology. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Bond, M. (Ed.). (1996). The handbook of Chinese psychology. New York: Oxford University Press.

Campbell-Evans, G. (1993). A values perspective on school-based management. In C. Dimmock (Ed.), School-based management and school effectiveness (pp. 92-113). London: Routledge.

Cheng, K.M. (1995). The neglected dimension: Cultural comparison in educational administration. In K.C. Wong & K.M. Cheng (Eds.), Educational leadership and change: An international perspective. Hong Kong: Hong Kong University Press.

Cheng, K.M. & Wong, K.C. (1996). School effectiveness in East Asia: Concepts, origins and implications. Journal of Educational Administration, 34(5), 32-49.

Cuban, L. (1992, January). Managing dilemmas while building professional communities. Educational Research, pp. 4-11.

Cuban, L. (1994) Reforming the practice of educational administration through managing dilemmas. Unpublished draft paper, Stanford University, Stanford, CA.

Dimmock, C. (1996). Dilemmas for school leaders and administrators in restructuring. In K. Leithwood, J. Chapman, D. Corson, P. Hallinger, & A. Hart (Eds.), International handbook of educational leadership and administration (pp. 135-170). Dordrecht, Netherlands: Kluwer Press.

Dimmock, C. (1998). Restructuring Hong Kong's schools: The applicability of Western theories, policies and practices to an Asian culture. Educational Management and Administration, 26 (4), 363-377.

Dimmock, C. & O'Donoghue, T. (1997). The edited topical life history approach: A new methodology to inform the study of school leadership. Leading and Managing, 3(1), 48-70.

Dimmock, C. & Walker, A. (1997). Hong Kong's change of sovereignty: School leader perceptions of the effects on educational policy and school administration. Comparative Education, 36 (2), 277-302.

Dimmock, C. & Walker, A. (1998a). Comparative educational administration: Developing a cross-cultural conceptual framework. Educational Administration Quarterly, 34(4), 558-595.

Dimmock, C. & Walker, A. (1998b). Towards comparative educational administration: The case for a cross-cultural, school-based approach. Journal of Educational Administration, 36 (3-4), 379-401.

Duke, D. (1996) A normative perspective on organizational leadership. Paper presented at the Toronto Conference of values and Educational Leadership, Toronto, Canada, October 4.

Education and Manpower Branch & Education Department. (1991). The school management initiative: Setting the framework for quality in Hong Kong schools. Hong Kong: Government Printer.

Education Commission. (1996). Quality school education (consultation document) (Report No.7). Hong Kong: Author.

Education Department. (1994). Report of the advisory committee on implementation of Target Oriented Curriculum. Hong Kong: Government Printer.(mimeo.)

Fei, H-T. (1985). Xiangtu zhongguo [Earthbound China]. Hong Kong: Joint Publishers. [in Chinese]

Firestone, W. (1993). Alternative arguments for generalising from data as applied to qualitative research. Educational Researcher, 22 (4), 16-23.

Gardner, H. (1995). Leading minds. New York: Basic Books.

Glatter, R. (1994). Managing dilemmas in education: The tightrope walk of strategic choice in more autonomous institutions. Paper presented at the 8th International Intervisitation Program in Educational Administration, Toronto, Canada and Buffalo, USA, May 15-27.

Grace, G. (1995). School leadership: Beyond educational management. London: Falmer Press.

Greenfield, T. & Ribbins, P. (Eds.). (1993). Greenfield on educational administration: Towards a humane science. London: Routledge.

Hallinger, P. & Heck, R. (1996). The principal's role in school effectiveness: An assessment of methodological progress, 1980-1995. Educational Administration Quarterly, 32(1), 5-44.

Hallinger, P., Leithwood, K., & Murphy, J. (Eds.). (1993). Cognitive perspectives on educational administration. New York: Teachers College Press.

Hart, A., Bredeson, P., Marsh, L., & Scribner, J. (1997). Problem-solving errors of educational leaders. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association, March, Chicago, IL.

Haynes, E. & Licata, J. (1995). Creative insubordination of school principals and the legitimacy of the justifiable. Journal of Educational Administration, 33 (4), 21-35.

Heck, R. & Hallinger, P. (1997). Epistemological frames and methods for the study of school leadership. Paper presented at the Annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, March, Chicago, IL.

Hodgkinson, C. (1978). Towards a philosophy of administration. Oxford: Basil Blackwell. Hofstede, G.H. (1980). Cultures consequences: International differences in work-related values. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.

Hofstede, G.H. (1991). Cultures and organisations: Software of the mind. London: McGraw Hill.

Holmes, B. (1965). Problems in education: A comparative approach. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.

Kirkbride, P., Tang, S., & Westwood, R. (1991). Chinese conflict preferences and negotiating behaviour: Cultural and psychological influences. Organisational Studies, 12, 365-86.

Leithwood, K. (1995). Cognitive perspectives on school leadership. Journal of School Leadership, 5 (2), 115-135.

Leithwood, K., Begley, P., & Cousins, J. (1994). Developing expert leadership for future schools. London: Falmer Press.

Leithwood, K. & Stager, M. (1991). Components of expertise in principals' problem solving. Educational Administration Quarterly, 25 (1), 126-161.

Lincoln, Y. & Guba, E. (1985). Naturalistic inquiry. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

Marshall, C. (1991). School administrators ethical dilemmas. Paper presented at the Annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, April, Chicago, IL.

Miles, M. & Huberman, A. (1994). Qualitative data analysis (2nd ed). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Murphy, J. (1994). Transformational change and the evolving role of the principal: Early empirical evidence. In J. Murphy & K. Seashore Louis (Eds.), Reshaping the principalship (pp. 20-55). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

O'Donoghue, T., Aspland, T., & Brooker, R. (1993). Dilemmas in teachers' conceptions of the nature of their curriculum work: A Queensland case study. Curriculum Perspectives, 13 (3), 11-22.

Patterson, J. (1992). Leadership for tomorrow's schools. Alexandria, VA: ASCD.

Redding, G. (1977). Some perceptions of psychological needs among managers in Southeast Asia. In Y. Poortinga (Ed.), Basic problems in cross-cultural psychology. Amsterdam: Swets & Zeitlinger.

Simons. H. (1982). Conversation piece: The practice of uttering, muttering, collecting, using and reporting talk for social and educational research. London: Grant McIntyre.

Steinbach, R., Leithwood, K., & Gleue, K. (1996). Struggling to manage distributed leadership. Paper presented at the Annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, March, New York City.

Strauss, A. & Corbin, J. (1990). Basics of qualitative research: Grounded theory procedures and techniques. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

Taylor, S. & Bogdan. R. (1984). Introduction to qualitative research methods - the search for meaning. New York: John Wiley.

Walker, A. (1997). Shape, impression and blockage: A case of leadership and culture change. Educational Studies, 23 (1), 63-86.

Walker, A., Bridges, E., & Chan, B. (1996). Wisdom gained, wisdom given: Instituting PBL in a Chinese culture. Journal of Educational Administration, 34(5), 12-31.

Walker, A. & Dimmock, C. (1998). Hong Kong's return to mainland China: Education policy in times of uncertainty. Journal of Education Policy, 13(1), 3-25.

Walker, A. & Quong, T. (1998). Valuing differences: Strategies for dealing with tensions of educational leadership in a global society. Peabody Journal of Education, 73(2), 81-105.

Westwood, R. (Ed.). (1992). Organisational behaviour: Southeast Asian perspectives. Hong Kong: Longman.

Winter, R. (1982). Dilemma analysis: A contribution to methodology for action research. Cambridge Journal of Education, 12 (3), 166-173.

Acknowledgements

The authors wish to express their appreciation to the Chinese University of Hong Kong for supporting research into principalship dilemmas through a Direct Grant, and to the Hong Kong Institute of Educational Research (HKIER) for their support of the project. We also wish to acknowledge the support of the Research Grants Council of Hong Kong through an Earmarked Grant. We also thank the principals who so generously gave their time to be involved in the study.

Alan Walker and Clive Dimmock are Associate Professors in the Department of Educational Administration and Policy, Chinese University of Hong Kong, Shatin, New Territories, Hong Kong. ([e-mail]) (cdimmock@cuhk,edu.hk).