Educational Leadership

Culture and Diversity

Clive Dimmock, Allan Walker

• Publisher: SAGE Publications Ltd
• Year: 2005
• Print ISBN: 9780761971702, 9780761971696
• eBook ISBN: 9781446226643
• Edition: 1
• Topic: Education
• Subtopic: Education Administration

`A highly recommendable and powerful work...I have found this book to be both a revelatory mirror on past events and an inviting window to future prospects. I am certain that it will be of equal or greater value to all those involved and interested in the tangled complexities, and inherent rewards, of educational leadership, particularly within international or cross-cultural contexts? - Daniel H. Jarvis, International Review of Education

`Clive Dimmock and Allan Walker?s books is a valuable addition to the overcrowded literature on leadership. This is a useful and important book because citizenship, globalization and the tensions with nationality should be the concern of all who lead any school; even monofaith, monoethic and monolingual schools? - Tim Brighouse, TES Friday

?The authors offer a rigorous and systematic analysis based on careful definition, illustration and discussion which demonstrates the importance of understanding culture, leadership and their interaction in different contexts: in doing so they provide a powerful antidote to the simplistic export of ideas and lay foundations for a more sophisticated conceptual framework for the study of educational leadership? - John West-Burnham, International Leadership Centre, University of Hull

This key text in educational leadership focuses on the significance of the context and culture of schools. The book addresses the growing recognition of cultural differences between societies and the resultant differences in schooling. It also deals with vital issues relating to multicultural education and the leadership of multicultural schools. Drawing on their first-hand experience, the authors explore the differences evident in classroom teaching and learning, as well as organizational, leadership and management aspects of schools. They show how such differences can make over-reliance on Anglo-American approaches misleading, ineffective and restrictive.

Key features of the book include:

- a methodology to support the emerging field of international and comparative educational leadership and management

- in-depth comparative analysis of Anglo-American and Asian schooling and educational management

- the leadership of multi-cultural schools

This book is essential reading for professionals and students of educational leadership and management, as well as administrators.

1

Leadership, Culture and Globalization

In this opening chapter, we provide a backdrop to our argument in later chapters by juxtaposing globalization, and its accompanying trend towards conformity across societies, with the equally compelling influence of societal culture, and its connotation of diversity and difference between societies. We explore the relationship between these somewhat contradictory tensions and educational leadership, and draw some important implications therefrom.

Our aim is to highlight the importance of the concept of societal culture to developing theory, policy and practice in educational leadership within an increasingly globalizing educational context. A key argument is that tensions between globalization and societal culture make the recognition of societal culture and cross-cultural similarities and differences more, not less, important. Consequently, the inclusion of societal culture as a factor in investigations covering such themes as the curriculum, teaching and learning, leadership and school-based management, is seen as an imperative for the future development of educational leadership as a field of research and practice. Accordingly, the first part of the chapter clarifies a number of key concepts, notably culture, globalization and leadership. In the second part, globalization and societal culture are juxtaposed and the interface between them is explored. The third part provides an illustration of our argument for greater cultural sensitivity by raising some key issues concerning leadership, school reform and improvement in globalized settings. It is also worth stating that we see the relationship between societal culture and globalization as complex and dynamic. While the nature of globalization is fast changing, so, too, are many societal cultures. Both are evolving and interdependent phenomena.

Culture and related concepts

In a book devoted to culture and leadership, it is important to clarify some of the core concepts, the most important of which is culture itself. Sociologists define culture as the values held by members of a given group that distinguish it from other groups. These include the norms they follow, and the material goods they create (Giddens, 1989). Values are abstract ideals, while norms are definite principles or rules that people are expected to observe. Thus ‘culture’ refers to the whole way of life of the members of a society or group. It includes how they dress, what and how they eat, marriage customs and family life, their patterns of work, religious ceremonies, leisure pursuits and works of art. It is displayed and expressed through language, thought and action. It is also expressed through physical objects, such as works of art, books, icons, monuments and museums, and through social interaction such as how people relate to one another, make decisions and share experiences. It is the last of these – social interaction – that is perhaps of most significance for educational leadership.

The fact that culture is attributed to a group of people raises the question of group size. In this book, we refer principally to two levels of group size – the society and the organization. Making international comparisons between cultures at societal level inevitably involves simplification and reduction. Simple and convenient descriptions of a society’s culture are bound to be reductionist for the following reasons. There have always been regional differences in customs, values and norms within a society. In addition, waves of population migration and increased mobility have nowadays left relatively few culturally homogenous societies. Rather, an increasing heterogeneity or hybridity characterizes most societies, especially the more advanced, developed and urban societies of Europe, North America and Australia. Furthermore, while ethnic and migrant groups tend to cluster within multi-ethnic societies, emphasizing internal cultural divides, a process of intermarriage between peoples, especially among second and third generation migrants, has tended to blur and reduce cultural divides within societies. And while ethnic groups may cling to many of their traditional values and religions, they also gradually assimilate to the host culture. Despite the cultural complexity and hybridity within societies, we still feel compelled to recognize distinctive national cultures. Governments, the media – and people in general – foster and perpetuate the notion of nationality, and its expression through predominant cultural values. We still find it useful and relevant to draw comparisons and contrasts between the cultures of different societies based on their predominant features. These may mask finer points of detail and difference, but they enable groups of people to gain identity.

Culture is clearly a difficult and abstruse concept to define. For example, it is distinct from, but very closely linked to, society. Whereas society is simply the system of interrelationships connecting individuals, culture is the ‘glue’ that binds people together through a shared and common understanding of an accepted way of life that is distinguishable from other groups (Giddens, 1989).

It is also a contested concept. There is, first, debate about whether it incorporates religion, and what its precise relationship is to politics and economics. Close relationships and overlaps exist between all three. Since basic values constitute the essence of culture, and both politics and religion are underpinned by such values, a strong case can be made for claiming that culture underpins them both. Secondly, there is dispute as to whether culture refers exclusively to the traditional and enduring values and norms of a society (often centuries old), or whether it should include more recent and contemporary changes and additions. Thirdly, there are differences between sociological and anthropological definitions of culture (for a full discussion, see Dimmock and Walker, 1998a).

While universals exist across all cultures – for example language, family system, and religious rituals – the remarkable feature of cultures is their diversity. Values and norms of behaviour vary widely across cultures. Such variety may be found in almost every aspect of life, including socializing the young, teaching the young and ways in which the young learn. As Giddens (1989) claims, small, agrarian and less developed societies tend to be culturally uniform and homogeneous, whereas developed and industrialized societies tend to be culturally diverse, embracing many subcultures. Cities in such societies contain many subcultural groups living side by side. In Chicago’s west side, for example, in just one neighbourhood, Suttles (1968) found Jews, Greeks, Puerto Ricans, blacks, gypsies, Italians, Mexicans and Southern whites living in close proximity, each with their own ‘territories’ and ways of life. Societies receptive to past, present and future migrant waves are clearly bound to be culturally diverse.

Every culture contains its own unique patterns of behaviour that often seem alien to people of other cultural backgrounds. We cannot understand specific practices and beliefs unless we take into account the wider cultures of which they are part. A culture has to be studied in terms of its own meanings and values. That means, wherever possible, we need to avoid ‘ethnocentrism’, that is, the judging of other cultures from our own cultural perspective. If ethnocentrism is to be avoided when studying schools and school leadership, then understandings need to be explored in terms of the particular cultures (plural) represented in a given community, not simply from the standpoint of the indigenous culture alone. Equally, to avoid ethnocentrism when considering educational leadership in other societies, it is just as important to view and interpret them from within their own cultural perspective as it is to do so from another cultural vantage point.

A number of key concepts related to the notion of culture can now be examined in more detail.

Multi-ethnic and multicultural

Clarification of these key terms is essential in the cultural analysis of schools and their leadership in order to minimize disagreement or misunderstanding. For example, the definitions of, and differences between, the terms, ‘multi-ethnic’, ‘ethnic minority’ and ‘multicultural’ schools, is crucial. Such terms are contestable and arouse people’s sensitivities. We use the term multi-ethnic school to describe a school whose student/staff profile has more than one race represented. The term ethnic minority school refers to a situation where at least one ethnic group experiences or perceives discrimination, group closure and solidarity. The term multicultural school describes a school that is achieving some measure of success in creating a learning environment that meets the ideals of multiculturalism. This may include a school community structure that accommodates culturally diverse students, a curriculum that adequately addresses issues of cultural diversity, and learning outcomes that indicate success for students of different cultures.

Cross-cultural

This is a useful term to indicate comparison across two or more societal cultures. Elsewhere (see for example, Dimmock and Walker, 1998a; 1998b), we have argued the case for more rigorous and systematic comparisons between the education systems of different societies. Following trends in international business management and in cross-cultural psychology, we believe that culture provides a fruitful basis for undertaking comparative analysis. For example, the leadership of educational institutions in China might be compared with that of British institutions by adopting a cultural perspective of leadership in the two societies.

Western and Asian cultures

Descriptors of groups of cultures are notoriously misleading overgeneralizations. Terms such as ‘Western’ and ‘Asian’ are imprecise and potentially misleading labels, the use of which is more convenient than accurate. There is as much variation within ‘Asian’ and within ‘Western’ cultures as there is between them. For example, differences between Malay and Chinese cultures, or between English and French cultures, may be as significant as those between, say, Malay and French. The labels do not even equate with geographical regions. For example, ‘Western’ is often used to include Australia and New Zealand, as well as the USA, Canada and the UK. A more useful terminology we have found is ‘Anglo-American’ to refer to the USA, UK, Canada and Australia, and ‘Confucian heritage cultures’ (CHCs) to refer to China, Japan and Korea, all of which have been deeply influenced by the values attributed to Confucius. However, once again there are major differences to be found within these groups. The Japanese and Chinese, like Americans and British, for example, while sharing many values, have some noteworthy differences. It seems that there are no entirely satisfactory group descriptors of regional cultures. If we use such labels, we should do so while mindful of the pitfalls and inaccuracies.

Organizational culture

Earlier, it was stated that our concern in this book was with two levels of group culture – societal and organizational. So far we have discussed the former. In much the same way that societies at large possess distinctive cultures, so do organizations such as schools and businesses. They develop their own sets of values and priorities, their own myths, legends and ways of doing things. Indeed, just as in the larger society, some in the organization may deliberately and consciously cultivate and perpetuate certain cultural features. This serves to unite the members of the organization and to create synergy. It also is a means to distinguish the organization from others, and to give it an identity to which members feel they can belong.

While parallels may exist between the two levels of culture, it is easy to overplay these and to ignore important differences. For example, while societal culture is deeply ingrained in tradition and tends to evolve slowly, organizational culture is more superficial and malleable. While societal culture is taken as a given by individuals (it shapes them rather than they shape it), leaders of organizations often set out to change the existing culture and create a new culture, even in the short term. Organizational cultures are more reflective of practice than deep-seated values (Hofstede, 1991), and practices are more susceptible to change than values.

When the two levels of culture – societal and organizational – are brought together, the resultant fusion is complex and difficult to comprehend. Organizations exist within, and are integral parts of, societies; hence people who live in a society and work in an organization bring their cultural values with them into the organization. However, the organization itself develops a culture, which may be conceived as superimposed on, and interactive with, the societal culture. Organizational practices and values may or may not align with those of the society. Multinational companies and international schools may have values that transcend those associated with the host society in which they happen to be located. Where organizational culture aligns with the values underpinning societal culture there is cultural consistency and reinforcement. Where there is no such alignment, individuals may adopt one set of values at work and another set outside in society.

Leadership

By any standard, leadership has proven to be an elusive concept to define. Reasons for this elusiveness include the sheer ubiquitousness of the concept and its multifaceted nature. Almost every year, another group of scholars argue for recognition of yet another dimension of leadership. The consequence of these difficulties is that for a definition to gain even a modicum of agreement, it needs to be generalized and somewhat bland.

There are almost as many definitions of the term as there are scholars who have written about it. Most, however, recognize it to be the influence process between leaders and followers. Some add that the influence amounts to getting staff to agree to act in ways that they may not otherwise have been inclined to choose. Others see leadership as inspiring performances and achievements among staff that extend beyond what might have been reasonably expected. There seems to be general agreement that leadership involves setting the general and longer-term directions of the organization. Above all, as we elaborate below, leadership is a socially bounded and constructed process. Values, thoughts and behaviours that are the essence of leadership are social and interactive processes; consequently, they are culturally influenced.

An increasing tendency for academics and principals to travel internationally and to exchange ideas through the electronic media have led many to comment on those aspects of leadership and the principalship that are generic, common and global. There are certainly many common expectations of, and policy requirements that impact on, principals in different societies and cultures. For example, the widespread trend towards school-based management has led to more conformity in the principal’s role. International comparisons that draw attention to the similarities are in fact often supporting the globalization phenomenon. Rather less conspicuous, however, are the interesting differences that coexist alongside the similarities.

Societal culture is a further element complicating the concept of leadership, one that has gone largely unrecognized until recently. However, from the present sketchy knowledge base, it is becoming clear that the meaning of leadership varies across different societal cultures (Walker and Dimmock, 1999a). It is not just the meaning of the concept that differs cross-culturally. Differences extend to the ways in which its exercise is manifested in different values, thoughts, acts and behaviours across societies and their organizations.

Globalization and internationalization

There are important distinctions to be made between these terms. While ‘globalization’ represents the tendency for the same or similar trends in ideas, policies and practices to spread across national boundaries and societies, ‘internationalization’ implies the desire on the part of institutions, such as schools and universities, to seek opportunities to expand their operations, or to seek resources, outside their immediate society or environment. Thus schools in one country may try to recruit students from other countries; or, contrariwise, parents may seek overseas schooling for their children. International schools may draw their student intakes from a range of different nationalities. Universities seek to internationalize by offering their courses and degrees in other countries, or through exchange agreements with overseas universities, or by joint research programmes with them.

Thus one important difference between the terms is that while globalization implies sameness, internationalization – while fostering interaction across societal boundaries – may aim to capitalize on difference and diversity. A university may improve its reputation, status and financial standing, or intend to do so, through the diversity that internationalizing will bring.

In the foregoing discussion it is clear that two sets of forces are acting in contradistinction. One of these is a compelling group of factors making for globalization and thus convergence; the other is a group of factors associated with societal culture and divergence. While these two sets of forces may sometimes align, we argue that they are often in tension. Our discussion in the following section articulates these tensions between globalization and societal culture as forces in understanding leadership. We take ‘globalization’ to mean the adoption of the same values, beliefs, policies and practices in many societies and states across the world, with an emphasis on convergence.

The development of educational leadership as a field, globalization and societal culture

Our argument pivots on the need for educational leadership and policy at a time of globalization to incorporate societal culture – conceptually, theoretically and practically – in redefining and refining the field. There is no disputing the importance of societal culture to developing theory, policy and practice within an increasingly globalizing educational context. To re-state definitions: by ‘globalization’ we mean the tendency for similar policies and practices to spread across political, cultural and geographical boundaries. By ‘societal culture’, we mean those enduring sets of values, beliefs and practices that distinguish one group of people from another. To the extent that globalization tends to override societal culture, the latter tends to act as a mediator or filter to the spread of ideas and practices across the globe, resulting in their adoption, adaptation, or even, rejection. Thus in a globalizing world, recognition of the influence of societal culture and cross-cultural similarities and differences becomes more, rather than less, important. Consequently, the inclusion of societal culture as a factor in comparative or international investigations covering such themes as the curriculum, teaching and learning, leadership and school-based management is seen as imperative for the future development of the field.

In evaluating the development of educational leadership and management as a field, there is an over-reliance placed on prescription and opinion, on the one hand, and the underdevelopment of theory, especially empirically supported theory, on the other. A large part of acknowledged theory is Anglo-American in origin. Given the resources available to, and stage of development reached by, educators in North America, the UK and Australia, this may be understandable. It is of concern, however, that much of the theory generated is ethnocentric and, consequently, tailored to those contexts. Moreover, those generating the theory make little attempt to bound or limit their work geographically or culturally, an aspect which is particularly disconcerting for those who work outside Anglo-American societies. For example, why should the principle of subsidiarity, or the espousing of ‘distributed leadership’, or the tenets of decentralization and school-based management be as apposite for Asian settings as they are deemed to be for Anglo-American contexts, taking into account important cultural differences of power and authority relations?

Furthermore...

Table of contents

• Cover Page
• Title
• Copyright
• Contents
• Foreword
• Acknowledgements
• Introduction and Overview
• 1 Leadership, Culture and Globalization
• 2 Conceptualizing Cross-Cultural Leadership
• 3 A Cultural Approach to Leadership: Methodological Issues
• 4 Leadership and Organizational Culture by Michael Wilson
• 5 Leadership and Diverse Sociocultural Contexts
• 6 Strategic Leadership and Cultural Diversity
• 7 Leadership, Learning and Teaching in Diverse Cultures
• 8 Leadership and Staff Management in Diverse Cultures
• 9 Teacher Appraisal in Culturally Diverse Settings
• 10 Leadership Dilemmas and Cultural Diversity
• 11 Leadership of Culturally Diverse Schools
• 12 Developing Educational Leadership in Culturally Diverse Contexts
• References
• Index