Newly qualified teachers’ experiences of support in a micro-political perspective

ABSTRACT

The induction period is a frequently discussed element in a teacher’s career. While there is a recognised need for support during induction, the access to support is not available to all newly qualified teachers (NQTs). However, little is known about the micro-political processes of NQTs’ access to support in the workplace. The purpose of this study is to investigate experiences of support during NQTs’ first year in teaching, using concepts from micro-political theory. The findings show that NQTs experience reactive support, a lack of formal support, and self-initiated informal peer support. The findings are based on a thematic analysis of written accounts collected from 15 NQTs in Norwegian secondary schools every month during their first year, as well as individual interviews at the end of the year. The study concludes that the use of power in interactions among members of the school organisation impact NQTs’ access to induction-support.

KEYWORDS:

• Newly qualified teachers
• follow-up study
• secondary school
• induction period
• support
• micro-politics

Introduction

Research on newly qualified teachers (NQTs) has identified the challenges they face, as well as their need for support (see, for example, Çakmak et al., 2019; Smith et al., 2019). Building on a micro-political perspective (Ball, 2012; Kelchtermans & Ballet, 2002) this study investigates NQTs’ experiences of support in the workplace during their first year of teaching. While the need for support during the induction period is widely accepted in education policy, practice and research (Avalos, 2016; OECD, 2019b; OECD, 2020), the access to formal and informal support is not available to all NQTs. For example, the TALIS survey from 2018 shows that “about 62% of teachers, on average across OECD countries and economies, report that they did not participate in any induction activities, formal or informal, during their first employment” (OECD, 2019a, p. 140). Several studies confirm similar tendencies in countries such as Israel (Nasseraldeen et al., 2021), Sweden (Fransson, 2020) and Denmark (Frederiksen & Bonde, 2020).

Across countries, there are various options for support during the induction period (see, for example, Fransson et al., 2018; Zuljan & Požarnik, 2014). Common to all countries may be a political decision at a national level. However, there is no guarantee that political intentions work well at the school level for the benefit of NQTs. In Norway, for example, there is a national framework for mentoring NQTs from pre-school to upper secondary school (Norwegian Ministry of Education and Research, 2018). However, in recent years, several government-initiated evaluations have shown that about 40 percent of NQTs were not included in any formal mentoring programmes (Rambøll Management Consulting, 2016; 2021), which represents a discrepancy between intention and reality. This discrepancy shows that NQTs are dependent on how intentions at a national level are interpreted and integrated in their workplace.

The situation that has been described made us curious to find out more about formal, as well as informal, support in workplaces from a perspective of organisational traditions, habits and power relations (Kelchtermans & Ballet, 2002). The focus of earlier research on NQTs’ support has been on multiple themes, including the prevention of reality shock (Howe, 2006), stress/burnout (Hong, 2010; Skaalvik & Skaalvik, 2018), early teacher attrition (Perryman & Calvert, 2020), as well as how to support self-esteem (Hobson et al., 2009) and improve teaching (Ingersoll & Strong, 2011). There has also been some focus on the socialisation processes in the school as an organisation (Alihija & Fresko, 2010; Amdal & Ulvik, 2019). What seems to have been overlooked in research so far is how micro-political issues interplay with NQTs’ support and how these issues are addressed over time. The aim of the study is to contribute empirical data that can generate new insight into how NQTs’ access to formal and informal support plays out in the workplace during their first year of teaching. The research question is:

In what way is micro-politics apparent in NQTs’ experience of support during their first year of teaching?

In our exploration of NQTs’ accounts of support over time, we analysed written accounts collected each month from 15 NQTs in secondary schools in Norway, as well as transcribed interviews conducted at the end of the year. Furthermore, the qualitative follow-up design with different points in time for data collection, will address the call for more research on NQTs with a focus on processes as they actually unfold over time (Kelchtermans, 2019; Marent et al., 2020). The term ‘support’ is used to explain induction activities in formal programmes/agreements or in informal activities available in the workplace (OECD, 2019a). Below, we provide an account of the theoretical perspective for analysing NQTs’ experiences during their first year of teaching. This is followed by a description of the context of the study, the sample, methodology and analysis, before we go on to present and discuss the results.

Micro-political perspective on teacher induction

In a micro-political perspective, NQTs’ support in the workplace does not exist in a vacuum, but within a context that includes negotiation with influence, power and interests driven by the variety of goals, motives and concerns of the individuals and groups involved (Ball, 2012). Micro-political theory refers to the use of formal and informal power in interactions between members of organisations aimed at establishing, safeguarding or restoring desirable working conditions. The pursuit of desirable working conditions will serve as the parties’ interests (Kelchtermans & Ballet, 2002). Careers, resources, status and influence are at stake in the negotiations that take place within schools concerning who gets what, how and when (Ball, 2012; Blasé & Björk, 2010). Much of what goes on in day-to-day school life is not necessarily marked by strife among the members involved. However, a micro-political perspective takes into account the ingrained patterns of privilege among particular individuals or groups (Ball, 2012).

Literature on micro-politics in schools has provided valuable insight into the nature of pedagogical practices of, for example, school leaders (Wall, 2020), teacher collaboration (Achinstein, 2002) and teacher evaluation policy (Rahmoun et al., 2021). When it comes to NQTs, several studies have reported complicated processes for becoming a member of an organisation (Achinstein, 2006; Kelchtermans & Ballet, 2002; Schempp et al., 1993). NQTs must understand the school setting, establish themselves, as well as position themselves to justify their practices and secure legitimacy (Christensen et al., 2013; Marent et al., 2020). Although they may perceive respect from colleagues, they gain little by way of power and control in the school organisation (Hong, 2010). For example, research reveals NQTs’ experiences of being exploited and marginalised in class allocation assignments (Magudu & Gumbo, 2017), and they encounter inappropriate or unfair assignments (Grissom et al., 2015; Smith et al., 2019), such as out-of-field teaching (Du Plessis et al., 2015). When it comes to the emotional dimensions of teachers’ work, NQTs try to strike a balance between the school’s micro-politics and their own values (Jokikokko et al., 2017; see also Lindqvist et al., 2020). NQTs also experience a culture of silence of what is, and what is not articulated in the school context, which in turn regulates how NQTs express themselves (Uitto et al., 2015). Research has identified that veteran teachers, as the strongest force shaping the workplace culture, limit NQTs’ opportunities to interact with students in line with their ideals (Lassila & Uitto, 2016; see also Uitto et al., 2021). The NQTs reported complicated processes for becoming a member of an organisation, which reveals micro-political aspects of teacher induction.

With this as a backdrop, our focus is on support in the workplace during teacher induction. While the situation for many NQTs is one of limited access to formal and informal support, the presence of micro-politics in schools may interplay with these issues. In this study, we apply the concepts of influence, power, and interests from micro-political theory to investigate whether and, where applicable, how micro-politics appear in NQTs’ experiences of support in the workplace during their first year in teaching.

The study

The context

In Norway, NQTs are certified for the profession and given full responsibility as teachers as soon as they start teaching. In the process of becoming a member of the organisation, they can expect a collaborative culture characterised by mutual support among teachers (OECD, 2020). Teacher collaboration serves as a mandatory and an integral part of teachers’ work outside the classroom (Norwegian Ministry of Education and Research, 2017). This collaboration is organised in different communities in the workplace and with a variety of combinations of teachers who teach both at the same grade level and across different levels, and who teach the same subjects or across different subjects.

The local school authorities are responsible for the induction period (Norwegian Working Environment Act, 2006, § 4-2). The intention is to offer NQTs a six-percent reduction in teaching hours without reducing their salaries during the first year (SFS, 2213). In addition, there is a national framework for mentoring (Norwegian Ministry of Education and Research, 2018). This framework is an agreement between central stakeholders in education. The intention is that NQTs should be offered mentoring in their first two years of teaching by mentors who have formal education in mentoring (30 credits). This mentoring is intended as “a planned, systematic and structural process conducted individually and in groups” (p. 6). Mentoring has no formal or informal assessment element and should be referred to as “mentoring as support” (Kemmis et al., 2014, p. 159) based on a growth model that supports NQTs in the development of their professional practice (for a deeper discussion of the Norwegian context, see Olsen & Bjerkholt, 2020). However, even if authorities’ expectations are high, the agreement has no legal standing.

The sample

The sample is based on volunteers from a purposive sample of NQTs (Cohen et al., 2011). The criterion for participation is to be in the first year of teaching after completing teacher education. The participants were recruited among students in the last semester of their teacher education programme (levels 8-13). The student teachers were asked to voluntarily provide their contact details to be part of the study. When school started in August, we contacted the volunteers, and 12 agreed to participate in the study. To increase participation, we recruited another three NQTs through an information letter sent to the university partner schools. The participants gave their informed consent to participate in the study and they were informed that they could withdraw from the project at any time, as regulated in the Personopplysningsloven (2018). They were also assured anonymity which was important considering their unsecure and temporary positions (Tangen, 2014). Data was collected from 15 teachers (T1-T15) in lower-secondary schools (grades 8–10), upper-secondary schools (grades 11–13) and primary and lower-secondary school institutions (grades 1–10) in Norway (see Table 1). Three men and twelve women participated in the study.

Table 1. Information about the participants.

Teacher	School	Position	6% reduction?	Mentor?
T1	Lower secondary	100%, temporary	Yes	Yes. Got a mentor after some months. Had to ask for it.
T2	1–10	80%, temporary	Yes	Yes. One-hour reduction in teaching time for mentoring.
T3	Upper secondary	97.29%, temporary	Yes	Yes. Got a mentor, but the arrangement was not followed up.
T4	Upper secondary	80%, temporary	No	Yes. Got a mentor who had been on leave and was not kept up to date.
T5	Upper secondary	99.13%, temporary	No	Yes. Some group mentoring.
T6	1–10	40%, temporary	No	No.
T7	Upper secondary	17%, temporary	No	Yes. Got a mentor after some weeks. Very limited mentoring.
T8	Lower secondary	100%, temporary	No	(Not interviewed)
T9	Upper secondary	88%, temporary	No	No. No mentoring even if she requested it.
T10	Lower secondary	78%, permanent	Yes	Yes. Got a mentor who became ill and was not replaced. Asked for a new mentor, but it was not followed up.
T11	Lower secondary	100%, temporary	No	No. Some mentoring with leader, individually and in group.
T12	Lower secondary	100%, temporary	No	No.
T13	1–10	100%, temporary	Yes	Yes. Preferred to ask another colleague.
T14	Upper secondary	100%, temporary	No	Yes. Group mentoring for NQTs. Got a mentor, but the mentor went on leave.
T15	Lower secondary	70%, temporary	No	Yes. Got a mentor after Christmas after asking for it.

Method and analysis

At the end of each month during their first year in the job, the participants responded to a question sent by e-mail: ‘How well do you manage your work on a scale from one to ten? Explain why you have chosen this number.’ In August, they also included information about the school, their position and their duties. In June, we conducted individual semi-structured interviews with 14 teachers about their time in the job (Kvale & Brinkmann, 2009). Before the interview, one of the participants (T8) dropped out of the research. The interviews were conducted by the researchers using Zoom. Each interview lasted for about one hour. First, we asked the participants what they thought about their first year. Then we showed them a line graph of their profile during the year, and they were invited to comment on the trajectory. They were also asked about roles, duties, responsibilities, support, collaboration, how well they were prepared for teaching, and how they saw their future in the profession. Finally, they were encouraged to talk about incidents that had made an impression on them. The audio from the interviews was recorded, transcribed verbatim and anonymised by a research assistant. The researchers who conducted the interviews checked the transcripts.

The analysis of the written accounts and the interviews is based on a hermeneutic approach (Gadamer, 2013). In searching for meaning, we primarily used a data-driven reflexive thematic analysis (Braun & Clarke, 2006; Braun & Clarke, 2019). The first stage consisted of individually reading the data to become familiar with aspects of the micro-political perspective (influence, power and interests). In order to ensure a rich and nuanced reading, the authors had a Zoom meeting (recorded) to present the results of this reading and to pool their data interpretation skills. In this meeting, ‘support’ emerged as an important aspect of NQTs’ micro-political experiences. To capture the entire body of data relating to ‘support’ and aspects of it, the first author re-read the data. A variety of support in their workplace were identified based on this reading. Some had a reduction in teaching hours, some had a mentor and others were offered group mentoring. Some found colleagues at their office to be supportive and others found support in the presence of a group of NQTs in their workplace, which meant they did not feel alone as they navigated the induction process. Some participants spoke of valuable relationships with collaborative team members, while others experienced an open-door policy among their leaders. The aspect of ‘support’ was then coded from the perspective of micro-politics (e.g., Ball, 2012; Kelchtermans & Ballet, 2002). The codes were used to generate themes in a circular process of examining the codes, collating them into broader patterns of meaning, splitting them into potential themes, and combining them into new themes (Braun & Clarke, 2006). The process included listening to the recorded analysis meeting and re-reading the transcribed material in its entirety. Furthermore, the results from the individual analysis were discussed among the three researchers again. In the following section, we present the findings of the themes identified in the analysis: the appearance of micro-politics in NQTs’ experiences of support in the sense of reactive support, lack of formal support, and self-initiated informal peer support.

Findings

Quotes by the 15 teachers in the sample are marked as ‘teacher 1 (T1)’, ‘teacher 2 (T2)’, and so on. The quotes from the e-mails are marked with the month they pertain to.

Reactive support

The initial finding is that NQTs experience support during their first year of work after challenges arise. We refer to this as reactive support. In order to start off the school year as proactively and with as much preparation as possible, NQTs need information, practical assistance and time, together with collaborative partners at the start of the term. However, the school organisation lacks the systems to provide sufficient support from the outset.

NQTs perceive the start of the school year as chaotic. They need clear, relevant and tailored information to ensure they form a holistic picture of their work. While some NQTs had “meetings with school leaders where they explained various things” (T2, T12), most of them needed more support to navigate chaotic situations. One states that “it would’ve helped a lot” if they had received more information at the very beginning of the term as opposed to being told “Here you are, this is your office. Now you have to find out everything yourself” (T4). The absence of information that is clear, relevant and tailored leaves NQTs feeling alone in the chaos. In addition, NQTs need practical assistance. They are particularly frustrated by not getting early enough access to, and training in, the organisation’s administrative and technical systems (T5, T8, T9, T13, T14). Consequently, they have to spend a lot of their own time learning about operational elements, which takes time away from teaching. As one NQT writes: “Much of what I learnt in my training feels like distant ideals that I never have time to put into practice” (T14Aug.). The frustration over the lack of insight into the organisation’s administrative and technical systems persists, and later in the term the teacher writes: “I feel too much time has passed for me to be able to ask someone for help” (T14Oct). The insufficient support that has been revealed prevents NQTs from going into the school year with a proactive approach and with as much preparation as possible.

Furthermore, NQTs need time with their collaboration partners. The NQTs state that they plan their teaching almost from one day to the next, and that they find it challenging to fulfil what they see as a requirement to produce periodic plans. As one NQT writes: “I work very much the same as I did in practice, where I took things one day at a time” (T5Aug.), adding that their aim is, eventually, to plan from a more long-term perspective. However, NQTs are unable to plan for longer periods without knowing “what students are actually going through” (T3Aug.), and consequently NQTs need support from more experienced colleagues in order to gain an overview. In relation to periodic plans, one NQT writes: “I didn’t know where to start” (T13Aug.). She also says that she was hampered by the fact that her collaboration partners were busy working with other subject teachers. She writes: “At times, I felt very new and to some extent superfluous” (T13Aug.). This suggests that she was overlooked or de-prioritised by experienced colleagues at the start of the term. In particular, NQTs are surprised that their planning days, which are common in Norway at the start of the school year, did not help them obtain more of an overview. As one NQT states:

I had completely different expectations of what those planning days would be like. I thought we were going to use that time to plan for our subjects and for the school year, but I felt like I was in a never-ending seminar, just constantly being given updated information. And while that’s important, I’d hoped that I would have more time to plan. (T1)

The NQTs’ accounts of not having time with their collaborative partners, as well as the lack of practical assistance and clear, relevant and tailored information, indicate the absence of systems within the school organisation at the start of the school year that offer NQTs adequate support. From a micro-political perspective, we can interpret NQTs’ material interests, understood as “availability and access to teaching materials, funds, infrastructure, and structural time facilities” (Kelchtermans & Ballet, 2002, p. 110) as being treated as less important by experienced stakeholders in the school organisation. Without the provision of such working conditions and the support to actualise them, it is difficult for NQTs to begin the school year with as much preparation as possible or to “perform their professional tasks properly” (Kelchtermans & Ballet, 2002, p. 4).

Eventually the school year starts and so does the support for NQTs. However, for the most part support is offered only after challenges arise. One of the NQTs says that although she was given a mentor, “By then, I’d had to ask everyone around me about things I was unsure about” (T7). Another NQT writes that towards the end of the term, she realised that she had not tailored her teaching well enough for certain students but neither had she received enough information early enough about these students (T9Oct). Although information about students’ special needs was available within the organisation, without this insight the teacher had poorer working conditions for accommodating these needs from the outset. Furthermore, we find reactive support in relation to student assessment, a field that NQTs find “very demanding” (T9Oct). NQTs furthermore lack support in the use of appropriate assessment methods by way of access to their colleagues’ proven practices. As one NQT states: “It would’ve been nice not to have to reinvent the wheel” (T14Oct). Furthermore, they lack support with regard to putting together a sufficient basis for assessment to provide a grade-based assessment at the end of the term. As one NQT states:

I had to crack on in the autumn term because I wasn’t aware of how I should be doing these assessments […]. It took quite a while before I even had any formal assessment situations, which made things stressful towards the end of the term. I realised that I didn’t have an especially good basis for assessment, and so I felt that I’d slipped up a bit. (T1)

Another NQT describes a similar experience: “I realised that I had to have a few more assessments before the summer in order to give a grade […]. So then I fell behind again” (T15). NQTs are novices and lack the support they need to be prepared ahead of the deadlines for mid-term assessments and final assessments within the school organisation. As one NQT states: “I wish I had been told that it was time to prepare for character development appraisals” (T9).

A lack of formal support

The second finding is that, throughout their first year, NQTs felt there to be a lack of formal support. Over the course of the year, NQTs gain ever-increasing insight into the support-regulating formal agreements at the macro-level of the education sector. Consequently, NQTs recognise that they do not receive the support that they are entitled to according to the intention of such agreements, and that they then go on to request.

An example of the lack of formal support is identified in the NQTs’ accounts of reduced teaching. The teachers’ national working time agreement stipulates that Norwegian NQTs are entitled to a reduction in teaching hours during their first year of work of up to 6 percent (SFS, 2213). However, only 5 out of the 15 NQTs were granted such a reduction. While some NQTs lack insight into their rights, others trust school leaders to correctly observe the formalities. However, school leaders are not always worthy of this trust. As one of the teachers puts it: “I think you have to be a bit tough, because you have to make sure you’re getting what you’re entitled to, at least as a substitute teacher. For example, you should have 6 percent fewer teaching hours, and you take for granted that your employer is giving this to you” (T14). Another describes how he eventually found out that in the first year he was “entitled to a 6 percent reduction in teaching hours” (T3). Once he became aware of these rights, he did not tell the school leaders himself but “mentioned” (T3) it to the union leader. He says: “I asked what he knew about it [the 6-percent reduction], and he was supposed to take it further. I didn’t take further action” (T3). At the end of September, he writes: “I found out that from December, I’ll be removed from one class to reduce my teaching hours by 6 percent. I’m looking forward to that” (T3Sept). When NQTs discover what their entitlements are under formal agreements, it makes an impression on them. One NQT whose teaching hours were not reduced says, with an undertone of disappointment: “You have to put up with certain situations, don’t you? Because you don’t know any better” (T4). She goes on to say that over the course of the year she has become more aware that “it’s actually not the only situation I’ve had to put up with” (T4).

Another example of the lack of formal support is identified in NQTs’ accounts of mentoring. One support measure in Norway is regulated in the national framework for mentoring NQTs (Norwegian Ministry of Education and Research, 2018). Ten out of fifteen NQTs were assigned a mentor. For some, this came about by their asking the school leaders for it themselves. One of these NQTs says that, during the autumn term, she found out about the national mentoring agreement and, with this in hand, asked the school leaders for a mentor. She says: “So after Christmas I was assigned a mentor” (T15). Another NQT says that he was assigned a mentor “very late”. He says: “It probably took two months before I got a mentor and I had to nag several times” (T1). Not everyone succeeds in getting a mentor, even if they ask the school leaders for one. As one NQT writes: “I’ve now asked about getting a mentor. They were supposed to talk about it at a leadership meeting. I haven’t heard anything about what they decided yet” (T9Dec). Others still find it challenging to know how to communicate their interests about support to school leaders. One found her mentor to be on long-term sick leave. She says that, ideally, the school leaders should have assigned her a new mentor of their own volition, but since that did not happen, she took matters into her own hands, which she found difficult. She says: “I think it was a bit difficult to ask directly whether I could have a new mentor. I was perhaps a little more indirect in saying ‘Yes, it would’ve been nice’ [to have a new mentor]” (T4). Furthermore, it was not easy for her to get a new mentor further down the line because she “felt” that she did not get “a complete answer to the question” (T10). However, the situation gave her experience that she could use to promote her interests to the school leaders in the future. She says: “I’ve learnt that I have to be much more clear and direct if I want things to happen. And I shouldn’t pussyfoot around, otherwise not much happens” (T10). This indicates that access to support occurs through negotiation between NQTs and school leaders.

Although 10 out of the 15 NQTs were assigned a mentor, only two of them had regular mentoring during their first year of work (T2, T5). The rest found their mentoring to be limited. One NQT says that, at the start of the school year, his mentor said to him: “You know what there is to know” (T3). The background to the mentor’s comment was that the NQT knew the school from having been a casual substitute teacher while he was studying. This meant that the mentor “disappeared fairly early” from their mentoring duties (T3). Another NQT says, “I have had a mentor, but I only spoke to them twice at the beginning of the year” (T10). She continues, saying that “the plan was to talk at least once a week, or at least when necessary” (T10), but that the plan was not followed. The NQTs’ accounts indicate that even where a mentor has been assigned, mentoring is ad hoc at best. NQTs lack mentoring in the form of a planned and systematic process, which apparently the mentors do not aim for. As one NQT states:

Had I known a little more, or had I understood a little more about what the mentoring arrangement could be, then I probably would have made it a little clearer that I wanted a set hour every week, or every two weeks. Then I would have known that I would meet her at such and such a time, on such and such a day. (T13)

NQTs experience a lack of formal support throughout their first year of work. Throughout the year, they gain ever-increasing insight into the formal support agreements that exist at the macro-level of the education sector. Consequently, NQTs recognise that they do not receive the support that they not only request but are entitled to, according to the intention of such agreements. From a micro-political perspective, the NQTs’ accounts of a lack of formal support indicate that the intended support mandated at the macro-level of the education sector must interplay with organisational traditions, habits and formal power at the workplace (Ball, 2012; Kelchtermans & Ballet, 2002).

Self-initiated informal peer support

The third finding is that NQTs feel that informal peer support requires them to take the initiative. Although NQTs find their colleagues to be open to providing informal support, this mainly occurs by way of NQTs identifying their needs themselves and approaching their colleagues. Consequently, the responsibility for getting support is placed on the NQTs’ shoulders, and they find themselves at the mercy of their colleagues’ willingness to offer it to them.

The NQTs enter an organisation where peer collaboration is a mandatory and integral part of teachers’ work outside the classroom (Norwegian Ministry of Education and Research, 2017). The NQTs describe how they and their colleagues have “regular meetings” in different teams (T10), “exchange ideas” (T14) and “share teaching plans” (T12). The NQTs find support by contributing to “good teamwork” (T6). Consequently, collaboration in teams can be interpreted as part of the formal support offered in the workplace (OECD, 2019b). At the same time, the NQTs find that within such teams it “can quickly be forgotten” (T1) that they are newly qualified, which triggers expectations that they too must “bring food to the table” (T6). This entails a certain pressure to contribute equally to the teamwork. Furthermore, it becomes clear to them that, in certain areas, they need support beyond what collaboration in a team can provide. However, working in teams means that NQTs can establish contact with experienced colleagues, which makes it easier for them to ask for informal support beyond the teamwork. As one NQT states: “At the very beginning, it was probably a bit difficult for us when we didn’t know many people” (T4).

The NQTs perceive their colleagues to be open to providing informal support. As one NQT states: “I feel that it’s okay to ask. Until now, I’ve not met anyone who keeps themselves to themselves” (T6). It would seem that asking colleagues for support is not a problem for NQTs. As one NQT states: “I'm not afraid to ask” (T2). Another says: “I’m good at asking for help from those around me, and I get the help I need” (T15Aug.). While a third says: “I have people around me who I can ask at any time if there’s something I’m unsure about” (T13). The NQTs feel that the threshold for approaching colleagues is low, which confirms previous findings of a supportive collaborative culture in Norwegian schools (OECD, 2020).

At the same time, we find that, for the most part, informal collegial support is offered precisely because NQTs ask for it. As one NQT states: “If I ask for something, I usually get help” (T5). Another says: “There are many who help if you ask them. You just have to know that you have to ask and you mustn’t wait for help” (T7). Informal collegial support presupposes NQTs taking the initiative; therefore the responsibility for obtaining support lies with them. In addition, it is NQTs’ perception that, despite colleagues being accommodating, there is a higher threshold for getting support at times. Unlike the mandatory requirement for collaboration in teams, informal support appeals more to the goodwill of the individual. One NQT refers to “a slightly unpleasant meeting” with an experienced colleague who did not want to co-operate in the preparation of an exam “because the person in question wanted to do it completely in their own way” (T3). He goes on to say that “it was a bit of a shame” since he himself was going to do it for the first time and his colleague “has experience, after all” (T3). NQTs see colleagues’ willingness to provide support as being influenced by the time they have available. As one NQT states: “Everyone is pressed for time” (T4). Another states that she was on her own with her teaching and sought support from colleagues in the same subject. She sent them a joint e-mail and “after a little too long” she got a response from one of them: “Great that you’ve made contact, we should all do more of that! Have you heard anything from the others?” (T13Oct). The NQT interpreted this episode to mean that none of the subject teachers wanted to take “responsibility” for giving her support. She adds that she views this as there being a lack of time: “I see that they don’t really have time for that” (T13). NQTs therefore find themselves at the mercy of their colleagues’ willingness to offer support.

The NQTs feel that in order to get informal support, they themselves have to identify the need for support and take the initiative to get it. The fact that NQTs have established contact with their colleagues by way of collaboration in various teams makes it easier for them to ask for informal support beyond the mandatory collaboration in the organisation. The NQTs’ experiences therefore reveal that relationships are a feature of informal collegial support (Ball, 2012). Equally, NQTs find that the responsibility for getting informal support is placed on their shoulders, and they find themselves at the mercy of their colleagues being willing to offer it to them. From a micro-political perspective, the colleagues’ freedom to prioritise support and their assessments of the time they have available may possibly reinforce their non-involvement strategy (Ball, 2012).

Discussion

This study has investigated the appearance of micro-politics in NQTs’ experiences of support during their first year of teaching. The findings show that NQTs experience reactive support, a lack of formal support and self-initiated informal peer support. In a broader sense, NQTs appreciate the support they received, even though the support is limited. The main basis of this appreciation may be a combination of the fact that they encounter a supportive school culture (OECD, 2020) and a formal structure of teacher collaboration (Norwegian Ministry of Education and Research, 2017) which make them feel that they are not alone.

However, using concepts from micro-politics when analysing NQTs’ accounts of their experiences, nuances were uncovered of who gets what, how, and when (Ball, 2012; Blasé & Björk, 2010). In different ways the support, understood as a professional interest of NQTs, appears as inadequate for safeguarding their working conditions to enable them to perform their professional duties properly (Kelchtermans & Ballet, 2002). This is manifested in the data because the support is given too late or mainly as a reaction to challenges that have already arisen. This is also manifested in the data because of a lack of formal support. Furthermore, it is manifested in the data that NQTs access to support is subject to their peers’ freedom to prioritise support or not. For example, for school leaders with formal power, it seems unimportant to introduce NQTs to their formal rights at the start of the school year. For mentors, it seems unimportant to offer mentoring in the form of “a planned, systematic and structural process” (Norwegian Ministry of Education and Research, 2018, p. 6). Consequently, formal and informal power relations seem to impact NQTs’ access to support in the workplace during their first year of teaching.

After a while, NQTs become more aware of agreements at the macro-level of the education sector which seems to encourage them to more actively promote their interests. While earlier studies have shown limited micro-political literacy among NQTs (Achinstein, 2006), this study uncovers, especially in relation to formal support, a certain courage when it comes to the ability of NQTs to read as well as to navigate such situations. With the help of formalities of macro policy, NQTs discover the responsibilities of school leaders and mentors to offer support and consequently, to some extent they then request to exercise their formal rights. We see this as a sign of NQTs’ literacy in their strategies to impact, change and create access to formal and informal support.

However, asymmetry in formal and informal power relations between NQTs and school leaders as well as experienced colleagues makes it more difficult for NQTs to promote their interests in access to support. The capacity to understand, navigate and influence the micro-political realities of schools (Kelchtermans & Ballet, 2002) in addition to possessing skills in micro-political discourse (Curry et al., 2008) seems to be critical for safeguarding professional interests within the school. A lack of micro-political literacy will hamper goal achievement in a complex landscape of traditions, habits and power relations for the group of NQTs. Earlier research has shown that familiarity with micro-politics is related to the number of years in the school. Conway et al. (2018) found that NQTs did not have strategies for navigating the micro-political landscape, while experienced teachers understood the nuances of the power structure and navigated purposefully. Consequently, there seems to be limited opportunities for NQTs to obtain support in the workplace on their own merit. Support within their workplace does not exist in a vacuum, but within a micro-political context. Access to formal and informal support thereby relies on a common interest between members of the organisation.

Limitations and further research

“Are all people in organisations politically aware and involved? It is all too easy to read motives into actions which may completely subvert the meanings and intentions of the actors” (Ball, 2012, p. 21). Firstly, we recognise the potential of failures in the interpretation of NQTs’ accounts of support, and the pitfall of reading everything as being micro-political. We have tried to strengthen the trustworthiness in the interpretation by our joint reflections.

Secondly, we maintained a keen focus on the NQTs’ perspectives in our interpretations of the data and have no data from the accounts of the other actors in the workplace. Therefore, further research should include other actors in the workplace. Finally, following the NQTs for a longer period allowed us to investigate the process character of the access to support. For deeper insight, as well as grabbing the value of the follow-up design, further research should collect data in different points in time from the group of NQTs, the mentors and the school leaders.

Conclusion and implications

The focus of this study is on micro-political processes of NQTs’ access to formal and unformal support in the workplace. Based on our findings, we may conclude that elements of the NQTs’ support in the workplace are determined by the interaction between the individual and the members of the school organisation. The use of formal and informal power in interactions between members of the school organisation thereby impact NQTs’ access to support during their induction period.

Contrary to macro-political intentions, support seems limited, reactive and left to the NQTs themselves to take the initiative. If left solely to coincidence and helpful colleagues, the start of a teaching career might be overwhelming. School leaders bear the primary responsibility for implementing macro-political decisions at schools. They should secure mentors who know what mentoring is about and who accept their responsibilities. However, as part of an organisation, every member bears a responsibility for the common good. A micro-political perspective on NQTs’ support has shown that there is still a way to go in the development of working communities that include them in a fair way that might benefit the organisation as a whole.

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).