The role of dialogue in principal support: when principals conduct organized conversations about the complexities of school leadership, they can resolve difficult issues and offer each other support in a safe atmosphere.

Sue walked in and slammed her day planner down. This is the last conversation I will be attending because I am quitting my job and this group today." The other principals, sitting at a round table, in a comfortable room, on a private college campus, did not respond with shock or awe.

After a few moments Lois said, "I have felt the way you may be feeling. It is terrible to feel isolated and unsupported."

Jim, an experienced high school principal in a small district on the coast of central California said, "Well, what happened? Why do you feel so frustrated?"

Then Sue began. It was a long but somewhat familiar story. It involved a whole cast of characters: difficult teachers, angry parents, a supervisor who wanted the sun, the moon and the stars, and in the middle Sue placed herself and her self-dialogue. There she placed her fears about how big her job as a high school principal really was, and her knowledge that only so much could be humanly accomplished in one day.

When the Principals' Dialogue Group was conceptualized it was cast as an experimental development project that focused on figuring out how groups of principals can come together in conversational dialogue that is powerful and meaningful to them.

This project was designed to offer a new way of supporting principals. It focused on the conceptualization of Christopher M. Clark (2001), and encouraged "authentic conversation."

Clark notes: "Authentic conversation is about making sense of and articulating our own experiences, implicit theories, hopes and fears in the intellectual and emotional company of others whom we trust. While some incidental learning about texts and topics may follow from these conversations, the heart of conversational learning for teachers is about ourselves."

These sorts of conversations are critical to assisting administrators in their growth and learning. Clark further notes, "Good conversations deal with worthwhile content; they resist narrow definitions; they are voluntary; they flourish on common ground, in an atmosphere of safety, trust and care; they develop over time, drawing on shared history and anticipating the shared future."

It appears that the complexities of school leadership--social, cultural and ethical--can be explored through dialogue when school leaders come together as peers. Many organizational theorists and practitioners advocate for dialogue as a way of improving communication at work and resolving issues that remain difficult to handle through normal organizational discourse (Ellinor & Gerard, 1999; Isaacs, 1999; Senge, 1990).

David Bohm's (1996) conception of dialogue is the most common notion present and has been popularized by Senge and his colleagues (Isaacs, 1999; Senge, 1990; Senge et al., 1994) as a part of the development of a learning organization.

Bohm's conception is focused on the ability of groups to "think together" and build shared meanings (Bohm, 1996). Bohm makes a distinction between dialogue and discussion. Discussion, from his perspective, emphasizes the analysis of ideas and encourages competition between people. Dialogue, on the other hand, "is something more of a common participation, in which we are not playing a game against each other, but with each other. In dialogue, everyone wins."

In this project there was an effort to create an environment for principals where dialogue could take place in order for the principals to "think together."

The Principals' Dialogue Group was formed in spring 2003. It was a voluntary group of seven principals who were invited to attend. I had met some of the participants in university courses I had taught, and others I contacted through the recommendation of a colleague.

The guiding question of this work was: Does conversational dialogue play an important role in the learning process of principals? In this article the names of the principals, schools and districts have been changed to guard confidentiality. Participants included:

* Jim, an African-American high school principal with more than 10 years of experience, principal of Horace Mann High School located in a small coastal district;

* Sue, a Hispanic woman with five years of experience, principal of Jersey City High School located in an urban district;

* Lois, a Caucasian woman with six years of experience, principal of Woodrow Wilson High School run out of juvenile hall located in a suburban area;

* Rick, a Caucasian man with three years of experience, principal of Milton Middle School located in a rural district;

* Don, a Caucasian man with six years of experience, principal of Kennedy Elementary School located in an urban district;

* Wayne, a Hispanic man with 20 years of experience, principal of Good Haven Elementary School located in an urban environment; and

* Julia, an African-American woman with three years of experience, principal of March Elementary School located in an urban district.

A starting place

The meetings were held monthly, over a six-month period, from 11 a.m. to 2 p.m. on the campus of a small, liberal arts college campus in California where I was teaching. Each meeting was held in a room I reserved in the administration building. It was a corner room with large windows, good ventilation, a round table in the center and padded, comfortable chairs.

I did not tape record the conversations because of my concern that the principals might be more restrained in what they might share if they were recorded. I did not want data collection to get in the way of the central focus of this inquiry, conversational dialogue. I did, however, keep reflective notes that were written after each meeting where I documented the meeting from my memory.

I spent a great deal of time preparing for each conversation session. Careful to present myself as a participant, I understood that I had to facilitate. I worked through a reflective process in order to generate the starting place for each conversation. Sometimes the conversation needed to pick up where it left off the time before, and other times it would go in a new direction.

For example, I might suggest we start by having each of them comment on the sort of activities that have been dominating their time and attention lately. That sort of jumping-off point gave everyone a gauge of where the others were, and also gave time to "tune-up," so to speak, for the conversation. The "starting point" was not the theme for the entire conversation, but instead a jumping-off point.

Ground rules

I always developed two starting points--one for the beginning of the conversation and one for mid-way through. It was important for me not to present myself as an expert or teacher, but instead as a former school administrator who could understand some of their experiences. I was an equal participant, coming to the conversation empty-handed and sitting down with the principals. My role was also to summarize throughout the dialogue and to connect participant comments without judging or directly teaching.

Confidentiality was important from the outset. Adhering to the ground rule of confidentiality helped build mutual trust between participants.

A caring and safe environment

During one conversation, Wayne smiled in a tired kind of way, and went on to explain what happened to him earlier that morning. A parent had come into the school office and told him his child had a warm wet towel in his backpack, in case of a chemical attack. The parent demanded to know what Wayne was doing to provide warm, wet towels to the other 605 students in his school.

These vignettes, although engaging, were not what always surprised me. Instead, it was the professional responses, the nodding heads, the understanding shared that spoke volumes about the work being discussed. The conversations helped the principal participants grapple with their individual and collective expertise and experience. This was possible because the atmosphere was trusting, caring and safe.

In the beginning, some of the principals believed they needed to have answers to any problem that surfaced in the conversation. As time went on, surfacing solutions became less important than allowing the principal to talk about the problem, gain a new perspective and then present possible options. This kind of processing moved the group away from the "one right answer" mentality, and began to blend "process" and "product" in interesting ways.

The relational bonds that were formed over time cannot be underestimated. The conversations provided the principal participants with a critical network of friends who were genuinely interested in the work they do. Because they were all from different districts they could listen and make observations through conversation at a discrete distance.

In each dialogue it appeared that there was a recommitment to education. Often, even in the simplest story, their commitment and deep dedication would be evidenced in moving ways. As time went on, the principals convinced them selves that the work of school administration is valuable.

It was clear the principals were able to draw upon one another's expertise. None of these principals was a time-waster. These conversations were central to their work. Much time was devoted to discussing the management of adults, a topic that came up in every conversation.

Creating a common reality

Wayne described a situation like this: Donna (a teacher) comes to me and tells me that Tony (another teacher) is hoarding gluesticks. I ask Donna if she has asked Tony if he needs the glue for a project, or if she could have some glue sticks to meet her needs. Donna refused to talk to Tony until I got involved.

Examples worked to clarify situations, but also to create a common reality. The other principals did not know Donna or Tony, but they do know that managing supplies and people can be time-consuming at school sites.

I learned that conversation has to be invited, not demanded. Just organizing conversation groups for principals will not do. Thought has to be given to why conversation matters to school principals and what it takes to create a safe atmosphere.

One principal, in explaining the value of the conversations, said, "There is no homework, no reading, no preparation. I can come and listen and contribute and when I leave, I feel I have gotten something important."

At the final session another principal stated, "I had a crisis at my site this morning and I wasn't going to come today, but I just couldn't not come."

The "meaningfulness" of the conversations developed over time. As the principals became comfortable with themselves in the group and with each other, they were able to find their voices in the group. This process gave them an audience for their work as well as validation.

I also found that the group size--seven--seemed to work well. Furthermore, each of the principals who participated in this effort was ready at the end to continue for another six months.

Adult learning

For school principals, lively, worthwhile conversations with colleagues are rare. Because our conversations were not scripted by an agenda, participants had to be willing to improvise, to speak, and to listen carefully to others. Clark (2001) noted that, "Authentic conversation, like teaching in our best moments, invites a rare kind of intellectual, emotional and rhetorical group performance, never twice the same."

Through our conversations, the principals became professional friends and trusted one another. Because time is at a premium, thoughtful and deliberate conversations may hold the key to offering substantial support to principals.

"Thinking together" in action

In these conversations I was reminded of the commitment, dedication and professionalism of the participants. I observed the effects of conversational feedback in helping principals cope with their work and Bohm's (1996) conception of "thinking together" in action. This was all perhaps best evidenced by the fact that the principals continued to make time to come to conversations and arranged their schedules so they could. Through this effort, the principal participants were supported in ways that mattered, and I was left feeling there is a great deal more to learn and explore.

References

Bohm, D. (1996). On dialogue. (L. Nicol, Ed.). New York: Routledge.

Clark, C. (2001). "Good conversation." In C. Clark (Ed.) Talking Shop: Authentic conversation and Teacher Learning, New York: Teachers College Press.

Clark, C. (1995). Thoughtful teaching. New York: Teachers College Press.

Ellinor, L. & Gerard, G. (1999). Dialogue: Rediscover the transforming power of conversation. New York: Wiley.

Featherstone, H., Pfeiffer, L., & Smith, S. (1993). Learning in good company: Report on a pilot study (Research Report 93-2). East Lansing: National Center for Research on Teacher Learning.

Isaacs, W. (1999). Dialogue and the art of thinking together: A pioneering approach to communicating in business and in life. New York: Currency.

Palmer, P. (1998). The courage to teach: Exploring the inner landscape of the teacher's life. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Senge, P. (1990). The fifth discipline: The art and practice of the learning organization. New York: Doubleday.

Senge, P., Ross, R., Smith, B., Roberts, C. & Kliener, A. (1994). The fifth discipline fieldbook: Strategies and tools for building learning organizations. New York: Doubleday.

Diane Ketelle is an assistant professor at Mills College in Oakland and a former school administrator.