Letting go while holding on. Women principals’ lived experiences with power
| Pages | 95-117 |
| DOI | https://doi.org/10.1108/09578230210421088 |
| Published date | 01 April 2002 |
| Date | 01 April 2002 |
| Author | Hope‐Arlene Fennell |
| Subject Matter | Education |
Letting go
while holding
on
95
Journal of Educational
Administration,
Vol. 40 No. 2, 2002, pp. 95-117.
#MCB UP Limited, 0957-8234
DOI 10.1108/09578230210421088
Received February 2001
Revised August 2001
Accepted September2001
Letting go while holding on
Women principals' lived experiences
with power
Hope-Arlene Fennell
Faculty of Education, Lakehead University, Ontario, Canada
Keywords Women, Leadership, Phenomenology
Abstract Power relations affect all aspects of our lives. MacGregor Burns states that ``Power is
ubiquitous; it permeates human relationships ... Power shows many faces and takes many
forms''. The purpose of this paper was to explore women principals' experiences with power
relations in the schools during times of increase in decentralization and accountability. The
findings of this phenomenological study were that the six principals viewed power as an enabling,
and a positive energy for change and growth in schools rather than a source of ``top-down''
domination. Their descriptions of power also asserted that ``power is not reducible to any one
source'', and that an understanding of poststructuralist and structuralist theories of power will be
essential for school leaders facing the dilemmas and challenges of the twenty-first century.
Power relations affect all aspects of our lives, and have been described and
considered from a number of perspectives. MacGregor Burns (1978, pp. 15-17)
states that ``Power is ubiquitous; it permeates human relationships ... Power
shows many faces and takes many forms''. Miller (1992, p. 241) defines power
as ``the capacity to produce change''. Foucault (1980, p. 180) contends that
power cannot be viewed as a separate and existing entity, and states that
``In reality power means relations, a more-or-less organized, hierarchical,
co-ordinated cluster of relations''. Women often struggle with power relations
in their workplaces (Ferguson, 1984). Historically, women's experiences with
power have been described as the ``power of the weak'' (Lips, 1992), and
women's goals, aims and dreams have often been subverted and superseded by
those of men (Fischer, 1988). Fischer (1988, p. 133) claims ``Many women
become uncomfortable, even fearful, when the topic of power is introduced''.
Despite their discomfort with the term, women's descriptions of their
experiences with power relations have broadened our understandings and
provided additional theoretical perspectives of power (Weedon, 1987;
Blackmore, 1999; Cherryholmes, 1988; Lips, 1992; Miller, 1992; Brunner, 1999;
Grogan, 1999).
Recently, there has been a call for principals to decentralize power in schools
and increase participation in school decision making by teachers, students,
parents and community members. At the same time, mandated changes to the
provincial education policies require greater standardization, and more
accountability by teachers and principals for the measured academic
achievement of students. Presented in this paper are findings from a recently
The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at
http://www.emeraldinsight.com/0957-8234.htm
Funding for the research on which this paper is based was provided by the Social Sciences and
Humanities Research Council of Canada.
Journal of
Educational
Administration
40,2
96
completed phenomenological study of six women principals' lived experiences
with power. Considering the possible paradox in power relations created by the
current thrusts of changes in schools, the question explored in this paper was:
what are women principals' experiences with power relations in informing
and influencing the work in their schools during times of increase in
decentralization and accountability? The discussion opens with a review of
power relations from the structuralist and poststructuralist perspectives. Six
vignettes relating the six principals' experiences with power relations are
presented in the second section. Discussion of the findings and conclusions
form the last sections of the paper.
Review of related literature
Structuralist perspectives of power: the concept of power as dominance
Structuralist views of power are rooted in the meaning of structuralism.
Defined as ``A systematic way of thinking about whole processes and
institutions whereby each part of a system defines and is defined by other
parts'' (Cherryholmes, 1988, p. 13), structuralism emphasizes order, control,
regulation, and avoidance of conflict. Exemplified in the workings of
bureaucracy (Weber, 1922), structuralist views of power are characterized by
rigidity, close adherence to rules and procedures, dominance and legalism
(Abbot and Caracheo, 1988). Weber (1922) viewed power in bureaucracies as a
legitimate force for control, and the capacity to exercise one's will even in the
face of opposition. Commenting on Weber, Grabb (1997, p. 105) states that
``Power does not ...refer to all such instances of exercising one's will despite
resistance, but only to those instances that are `illegitimate' or `not
institutionally sanctioned''' and authority is recognized as legitimate and
supported by social consensus.
Weber's work has influenced others such as Russell (1938), who identified
power as the production of intended effects, and Gardner (1986) who described
power as the capacity to bring about certain intended consequences in the
behaviour of others and to avoid outcomes that are not desired. Gardner
emphasizes two faces of domination, one based on specific intention, and the
other based on ``sugar-coating'', damage control and avoidance of negativity in
relation to the intended outcomes within power relations.
More faces of domination. In addition to exemplifying dominance overtly,
French and Raven (1960) suggest that legitimate power exemplifies domination
covertly when charismatic power and reward power are used to influence and
to manipulate others. Manipulation, exploitation and coercion are means to
manifest legitimate power and authority in situations where the goal is
dominance. The belief that ``the end justifies the means'' (Machiavelli, 1981) is
often used to justify manipulative, exploitive, abusive and coercive behaviours.
May (1972) describes exploitive, manipulative and coercive actions as
destructive misuses of power in human relationships, and indicates that, while
appearing in the subtle guises of guilt, flattery, favours and obligations, these
ploys are passive aggressive in nature. Kreisberg (1992, p. 40) concurs and
To continue reading
Request your trial