Micro-politics, Senior Management Teams, and Principals’ Inner Circle: A Structural Exploration

ABSTRACT

This study adopts a structural perspective to explore micro-politics in senior management teams and identify the principals’ inner circle. Based on data from an Israeli random sample of state primary teachers, profiles of trust in principal are identified and used to break down the subgroups of teachers serving in various roles in senior management teams. Odd ratios and two-sample t-tests between percentage analyses revealed that senior management teams are composed from three layers. Two layers form the principals’ inner circle and include the vice-principal as a central political ally and the more political layer of officials (form heads) chosen as part of a reward or cooptation strategy. The third layer (counselors and subject heads) of senior management teams is less political, and these teachers are less likely to be part of the inner circle. The implications for research and practice are discussed, particularly in regard to idealized discourse on distributed leadership.

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author.

Notes

1. Social power is defined as “the potential influence that one person could exert on another,” and social influence is defined as “a change in a person’s cognitions, attitudes, behaviors, or emotions” (Hatch, 1987, pp. 79–80).

2. Profiles based on a small number of cases are common and acceptable in organizational behavior research (e.g., a profile composed of 27 participants in Meyer, Stanley, & Parfyonova, 2012; and a profile composed of 14 participants in Somers, 2009).

3. Mayrowetz (2008) suggested that the concept of “distributed leadership” has several different uses in the literature: (a) as a descriptive theoretical lens to explore how activity is distributed among several people, (b) as a normative idea that distributing activity over several people promotes a democratic vision, (c) as a utilitarian professional idea suggesting that shared expertise outperforms individual expertise in promoting school outcomes, and (d) as a human capacity–building development approach, in which teachers develop their personal abilities and over time enhance school capacities. In this discussion, I focus on the tension between definitions (a) and (b). In addition, note that the discussion of distributed leadership is within the scope of formally established leadership roles and the senior management team (e.g., Bush & Glover, 2012), and not outside formally established leadership roles (e.g., Day, Hopkins, Harris, & Ahtaridou, 2009).