1

Principals Strategies for Increasing Their Teachers Social Capital

1

Kaleen Healey
Northwestern University





Paper presented at the International Congress for School Effectiveness and Improvement,
Limassol, Cyprus, J anuary 4-7, 2011

1
This research is part of the Principal Policy & Practice study and is supported by a grant from
the Spencer Foundation.
2

Abstract
Within a social capital framework, this paper explores the strategies used by new school
principals to facilitate relationships among their teachers, the motivations and expected outcomes
or goals for such relationship building, as well as how those conceptions change over their first
few months on the job. Using interview data from a sample of first-time principals, results
suggest that while principals primarily utilize formal structure to create opportunities for teacher
interaction, they do so in the hopes that relationships developed in these formal settings will
carry over to teachers regular interactions. Moreover, this analysis demonstrates that principals
seek to develop relationships primarily in order to influence their teachers instructional
practices, though many principals also believe these ties present opportunities for developing
leaders and can potentially benefit students. An examination across the two interview periods
further reveals that the relationships among teachers become more prominent for principals as
they contend with the set of existing relationships and the multiple, competing demands of their
new role. Given the increasing attention to the social conditions that promote school
effectiveness, a better understanding of how principals conceptualize and strategize to build
social capital among their teachers can inform principal preparation and professional
development programs, as well as school improvement efforts.
Keywords: principals, teacher networks, professional community, instructional change
3

[The principals role is] orchestrating people to work together harmoniously and with
excellence. Dennis
2
, novice principal
As described by Dennis, a novice principal in a large Chicago elementary school, the
work of school principals is both purposeful and artful. While principals are charged with being
the instructional, administrative, and operational leaders of their schools, Dennis words reveal a
more expressive side to their work. Principals have a hand in developing and maintaining the
relationships among faculty and staff in their schools, and they can capitalize on such
relationships in pursuit of school goals. The principals role is not just getting people to work
together, but to do so in a goal-directed manner.
The importance of supportive relationships among teachers for a variety of school
improvement outcomes is backed by a growing body of scholarly work. Prior work on teachers
relationships with their peers suggests that such ties promote instructional innovation, the
development and diffusion of effective teaching practices, and school improvement efforts
(Frank, Zhao, & Borman, 2004; Fullan, 2002; Hargreaves, 1999; Penuel & Riel, 2007). Given
these outcomes, school leaders potentially have much to gain by facilitating and supporting these
relationships. However, we know little about how principals conceptualize and enact their role in
facilitating and supporting relationships among their teachers. The experiences of novice school
principals as they work to develop or maintain connections among their teachers represent a site
for increasing our understanding of the opportunities and challenges principals face, as well as
what they hope to accomplish via these relationships. These existing conditions may help or
hinder principals plans for developing teachers ties, and therefore influence their ability to
achieve other school goals.
Using a social capital framework, this paper explores the strategies used by new school
principals to facilitate relationships among their teachers, the motivations and expected outcomes
or goals for such relationship building, as well as how they adapt their strategies as they gain
experience in their new role. Findings suggest that while principals primarily utilize formal
structure to create opportunities for teacher interaction, they do so in the hopes that relationships
developed in these formal settings will carry over to teachers regular interactions. Moreover,
this analysis demonstrates that principals seek to develop relationships primarily in order to
influence their teachers instructional practices, though many principals also believe these ties
present opportunities for developing leaders and can potentially benefit students. Finally, an
examination of principals responses over time suggests that the relationships among teachers
become more salient for new principals as they encounter the competing demands of their new
role during their first few months on the job. After a brief review of the prior work on teachers
relationships and social capital, I illustrate and discuss each of these findings.
Empirical and Theoretical Framework
Researchers and practitioners interested in school improvement have increasingly focused
on the social conditions within schools that promote instructional improvement and student
achievement gains. Among these conditions, supportive relationships among teachers also
characterized as teacher collaboration or professional learning communities have been touted
as a key element in school effectiveness (Bryk, Camburn, & Louis, 1999; Hoy, Hannum, &
Tschannen-Moran, 1998; Louis, 2006). Within these supportive relationships, teachers can share
expertise, observe one anothers instruction, critically examine teaching and learning, and
develop collective norms and values (Louis, Marks, & Kruse, 1996). Social capital provides a

2
All individual and school names have been replaced with pseudonyms.
4

useful framework for understanding how teachers relationships might affect their work, and
theoretical and empirical work on social capital demonstrates how teachers relationships might
be related to their students achievement. Moreover, recent work on teachers social networks
reveals that school leaders can influence the relationships among their teachers, thereby
increasing their teachers social capital and potentially their students academic achievement
(Coburn & Russell, 2008; Penuel, Riel, Krause, & Frank, 2009).
Social Capital
Most notably articulated by Bourdieu (1986), Coleman (1988), and Lin (2001), social
capital describes the access to resources that an individual gains via their relationships with
others (Adler & Kwon, 2002). These resources might include information, material goods or
services, social support, or obligations felt toward them by others. In organizations, social capital
has been conceptualized as a benefit to both the individual and the organization, and has been
shown to facilitate trust (Coleman, 1988), knowledge transfer (Inkpen & Tsang, 2005), and the
development of intellectual capital (Nahapiet & Ghoshal, 1998) among the organizations
members. In schools, social capital among teachers promotes instructional innovation, the
diffusion of effective teaching practices, and facilitates school reform efforts (Bryk & Schneider,
2002; Frank, et al., 2004).
More recent work examines how institutional and organizational characteristics can
constrain or facilitate the development of social ties, and therefore social capital (Small, 2009).
Schools vary in the norms, policies, and practices surrounding interactions between and among
stakeholders including teachers, administrators, students and parents which influence the
relationships that develop between and among these stakeholders. The structures, routines, and
culture developed and implemented by the principal are among the organizational characteristics
that can facilitate or constrain the development of relationships among teachers. However, new
school principals cannot simply turn on the conditions conducive to the relationships that they
want their teachers to develop. Rather, the existing school community can potentially act as a
supportive or opposing force for principals seeking to influence the patterns of interactions
among their teachers.
Teachers Social Capital
While the study of social capital in educational research began with a focus on students
social capital, more recent work has shifted attention toward teachers. While not always
explicitly approached with a social capital framework, the theoretical and empirical work on
teachers professional community largely attends to the outcomes related to ties among
individuals, a focus that is also evident in work on social capital. Prior work has conceptualized
professional community as comprised of both behavioral and normative dimensions (Bryk, et al.,
1999; Louis, et al., 1996). Among the behaviors, teachers in schools with a strong professional
community engage in reflective dialogue about teaching and learning, regularly observe one
anothers instruction, share their expertise, and collaborate on instructional issues. Along the
normative dimension, teachers in schools with strong professional community share a collective
focus on instruction and student learning, and work together to develop communal values and
goals (Bryk, et al., 1999; Louis, et al., 1996). A strong professional community can act as a
social resource for a school, in that it can influence how teachers work to improve instruction,
and therefore student achievement (Louis & Marks, 1998; Youngs & King, 2002).
Scholars have demonstrated the relationship between the development of strong
professional community among teachers and school characteristics, many of which are within the
purview of policy and school leadership. Both structural conditions, such as school size and
5

scheduled planning time, and human and social resources, such as supportive leadership and
respect among teachers, are positively related to professional community among teachers (Bryk,
et al., 1999; Bryk, Easton, Kerbow, Rollow, & Sebring, 1993; Lee, Bryk, & Smith, 1993; Louis
& Marks, 1998; Louis, et al., 1996). Interestingly, the composition of the student body in terms
of race, socioeconomic status and academic performance have not been shown to be significantly
related to the development of professional community, suggesting that this is a potential resource
available to all schools regardless of student population (Bryk, et al., 1999).
Principals Role in Developing Their Teachers Social Capital
Alongside the work on teachers professional community, scholars have demonstrated that
principals effects on student achievement are largely indirect, mediated by their influence on
organizational conditions, such as establishing opportunities for collaborative work among
teachers (Hallinger & Heck, 1996; Leithwood, Louis, Anderson, & Wahlstrom, 2004). The
theoretical conceptualizations of social capital by Coleman, Bourdieu and Lin each recognize
that the network of relationships available to an individual must be deliberately developed and
maintained, and recent empirical work suggests that school leaders can influence the
relationships among their teachers (Coburn & Russell, 2008; Louis, et al., 1996; Penuel, et al.,
2009). Principals have the authority and potential to positively or negatively impact the social
resources available in their school (Louis, et al., 1996; Youngs & King, 2002). By establishing
both structural conditions such as common planning time and focused professional
development opportunities (Louis & Marks, 1998; Louis, et al., 1996; Penuel, et al., 2009;
Youngs & King, 2002), and attending to the norms and expectations for interaction within the
organization (Bryk, et al., 1999), principals play a substantial role in the development of
professional community in their schools.
It is also important to acknowledge the challenges facing new school principals. A few
studies have examined the ways in which principals understanding of their role and approach to
leadership may change over the course of their careers (Allison & Allison, 1993; Earley &
Weindling, 2004; Oplatka, 2004; Weindling & Dimmock, 2006). In their longitudinal study of
16 new secondary school principals in the UK, Earley and Weindlings (2004) work suggests
that the first few days, weeks, and months represent a critical period when principals notions
about the principalship meet the reality of their particular schools. Before implementing changes
to the schools structure or instructional practices, new principals must first work to understand
the existing set of norms, practices, and relationships in their school, in order for the
implementation to be successful (Spillane & Coldren, under contract; Youngs & King, 2002).
Work on teachers professional community demonstrates that schools with strong professional
communities socialize new faculty into the norms and shared practices of the school, and we
might expect this socialization to also occur for the principal (Bryk, et al., 1999).However,
principal turnover can threaten the existing social capital in a school, if the new principal fails to
recognize the beliefs and norms of the remaining staff (Youngs & King, 2002). Given that the
current study involves interviews spanning the first three months of the school year, it will be
able to capitalize on the possibility that principals ideas undergo changes after only a few
months on the job, as Early and Weindling (2004) suggest.
Methods
This paper focuses on the experiences of new principals as they seek to utilize existing
relationships among teachers or facilitate new ones. Using interview data from a sample of new
principals in Chicago, the analysis explores the strategies they use to foster relationships between
6

their teachers, the motivations for such relationship building, and the expected outcomes or goals
for these ties.
Sample
Data for this analysis come from a larger study, conducted in the Chicago Public Schools
district, designed to examine the recruitment, retention, and socialization of new principals over
their first several years on the job. As part of this study, survey data were solicited in the summer
of 2009 from the entire cohort of 77 individuals who were new principals in the 2009-2010
academic year, yielding an 87% response rate. A subsample of 19 first-time elementary school
principals was then purposefully selected from the survey respondents to maximize variation on
participant race, gender and age, as well as school location, performance and student
composition (Glaser & Strauss, 1967). Two principals declined to further participate after the
first interview, and have been dropped for this analysis, leaving a sample of 17 first-time
principals.

Table 1.
Characteristics of Principals
Principal Race
Years of
Teaching
Experience
Years of
Administrative
Experience
School
Enrollment
(2009)
(to nearest 50)
School
Performance
(2009)
4

Adriana Latina 10 1 550
Level 3
(Review)
Anastasia White 6 2 550 Level 1
Andrea Black 17 12 550 Level 2
Angela Black 12 4 300 Level 3
Dennis White 28 9 1600
Level 3
(Review)
Emily White 6 2 650 Level 3
Nancy
2
Latina 4 0 - -
Nathan
1,2
White 3 3 - -
Nelson Black 7 5 750 Level 3
Octavio Latino 20 2 700 Level 2
Oscar Latino 10 6 1250 Level 2
Rosana
1,3
Latina 8 7 - -
Sam White 8 2 200 Level 2
Samantha
2
Black 7 3 - -
Steve
3
White 6 4 750 Level 3
Tim White 22+ 9 250 Level 1
Yvonne Black 19 3 500 Level 3
Notes:
1
magnet school;
2
new school (no 2009 school data);
3
middle school (all others
elementary);
4
Level 1 is the highest performance, 3 is the lowest, Review indicates the school is
under review due to low performance




7

Table 1 displays background information on the 17 principals in the sample. On average,
principals had 11 years of teaching experience, though the range was 3 to 28 years. Similarly, on
average, principals had 4 years of administrative experience going into their first year as
principal, though this ranged from 0 to 12 years. In addition, Table 1 displays characteristics of
the schools these principals worked in, and reveals that most principals were hired in low-
performing schools.
Data Collection
The primary data source is two semi-structured interviews conducted with these 17 novice
principals, each lasting approximately one hour. The first interview occurred in August 2009,
prior to the start of the 2009-2010 school year, and included questions regarding the principals
conceptions of the principalship, the shift from their previous role or occupation to the role of
principal, their expected challenges and goals for their first year, how they saw their role in
supporting the development of others, what they believed their key stakeholders expected from
them, and what they expected a good day would look like during the school year. The second
round interviews took place in December 2009, and explored principals experiences during their
first few months on the job and followed up on questions from the first interview on their goals
and expectations, the surprises they encountered, the challenges they faced, and their role in
supporting the development of others in their schools.
Data Analysis
All interviews were audio-recorded and then transcribed. Using NVivo, interviews were
coded for descriptions of interactions or relationships among teachers. The second round of
coding examined the specific ways principals created opportunities for these interactions, as well
as their justifications or motivations and the expected outcomes of these relationships. In
addition, responses were analyzed to consider how principals conceptualizations and strategies
changed over time as they were socialized into their new role and encountered the existing
relationships among teachers in their schools.
Limitations
Although the in-depth interviews conducted in this study have the potential to provide a
rich account of how new principals conceive of their role in building teacher relationships and
how those conceptions change over their first few months on the job, there remains a number of
limitations. As the data is all self-reported, it is not possible to determine how principals
behaviors align with their stated intentions and practices, or to assess the extent to which their
reported actions result in changes in teachers relationships. Moreover, the sample of principals
is from a single school district, which limits the generalizability of the analyses. Nonetheless, the
study can provide a descriptive account of how new principals conceptualize and enact their role
in building relationships among teachers, and how those conceptions and strategies change over
their first few months on the job.
Results and Discussion
While data collection and analysis for this study are ongoing, the results to date suggest
that principals use a variety of strategies and have multiple motives for developing teachers
relationships. Principals primarily create opportunities for teacher interaction through formally
scheduled meetings and routines. Moreover, principals seek to develop relationships primarily in
order to influence their teachers instructional practices, though many principals also indicate
that that these interactions present opportunities for leadership development and have the
8

potential to benefit students. Finally, an examination across the two interview periods reveals
that the relationships among teachers become more prominent for principals as they contend with
the set of existing relationships and the multiple, competing demands of their new role.
Strategies to Facilitate Teacher Relationships
The most frequently cited mechanism for developing teachers relationships with each
other was creating the opportunities for interactions to occur, primarily through the use of
structural means such as common planning time and routines such as grade level meetings and
peer observation. Prior work documents how principals use such structures and routines to
promote teacher collaboration and learning (Blase & Blase, 1999; Spillane, Parise, & Sherer,
2010; Youngs, 2007). All 17 principals reported creating opportunities for their teachers to
interact by formally scheduling such opportunities into their teachers workday. For example,
Oscar, the new principal at a large, K-5 school, explained during his second interview how he
had implemented mandatory staff meetings to combat teachers working in isolation and instead
encourage collaboration:
Oscar: I saw people who, you know, since they had not been monitored enough before,
they were used to doing, you know, isolated work; they did whatever they wanted.
Theyre not used to collaborating. And I think thats something that I changed. Were
changing that.
Interviewer: And how did you go about changing that?
Oscar: Well, first of all we scheduled grade level meetings, they have to be there. You
know and I make them accountable for that. I need to see an agenda, I need to see the
minutes, I need to see you know everything that is happening in those meetings quickly.
And you know when we plan activities for the whole school we make sure that
everybody has a part; you know that they are accountable for something. So you know
its just about accountability. You know making sure that people know that we all have
responsibilities and that our focus is the students. So yeah. Thats something that I
noticed that since there was not enough monitoring, you know, people were simply doing
isolated work. And I think were now collaborating more.
By requiring teachers to attend and document grade level meetings, Oscar established the
expectation that teachers work together. Oscars requirement that teachers use an agenda and
record minutes further suggests that he, like Dennis, wanted these meetings to be purposeful and
goal-directed. It is important to note that Oscar did not specify the content or attempt to
micromanage these interactions, as teachers were able to set their own agendas for their
meetings, and to plan school-wide activities as they see fit. This balance between mandated
formal structure and autonomy was evident in many of the principals descriptions.
Principals were also wary of the potential consequences of not having their staff meet
regularly. In her second interview, Nancy described conflicts that had arisen among her staff
members. She explained why she believed those conflicts had occurred: There was no
structure to ever have like whole faculty check-ins of any kind and people were wanting that.
And so because there was no formal structure for communication I think that led to some
misunderstandings amongst our team. Nancys account underscores the importance of formally
scheduled time for teacher interactions to occur. Without the time to convene and check in with
one another, teachers were able to go about their workday without a clear understanding of their
colleagues needs and challenges, which led to misunderstandings and conflict. To remedy this
situation, Nancy reported that she scheduled weekly afterschool meetings to provide her teachers
with time to meet as a group.
9

Fourteen principals reported using formal professional development sessions, not just to
increase individual teacher learning, but to promote interactions among teachers. In her second
interview, Anastasia, a principal at a medium-sized elementary school, described her approach to
using professional development sessions to foster relationships among teachers who might not
otherwise interact:
Um, enough has been shared with me from different staff members about different
dynamics that I have an idea, a very clear idea who works with whom. So there are
deliberate set-ups during professional development days when theyre asked to work
together. Theres team building that kind of goes in between the more formal sessions.
J ust like you do with your students theres that forced choice and sometimes you just, you
give them some choice but not really a choice.
For Anastasia, formal interactions can lead to informal conversations. By purposely pairing
together teachers who may not get along or typically interact, she forces them to work together
during the training. She expected that this forced cooperation would lead to conversations and
interactions outside of the context of the professional development. Anastasias response also
reveals that she had learned about the existing relationships in the schools, and was actively
working to expand some teachers relationships.
Anastasia was not unique in applying this strategy, as 14 principals in the sample
reported using professional development or training sessions as opportunities for teachers to
develop relationships. However, while Anastasia made use of the time teachers spent together
during the development sessions, most principals viewed the opportunities as occurring after
select teachers participated in professional development, and then brought what they learned
back to their peers, sharing information in either a presentation to a group or individually with
other teachers. I will revisit this tactic below in the discussion of leadership development.
In addition to regularly scheduled meetings and professional development sessions, 11 of
the 17 principals reported using peer observation to encourage teachers to work together on
instruction. Principals supported these observations by formally assigning teachers to mentorship
roles, and by providing coverage for the classrooms of teachers who were observing their peers.
For example, Rosana, a principal at a brand new middle school, described in her second
interview how she used a long-term substitute teacher to cover classrooms of teachers who she
felt needed to observe another teachers instruction. Rosana explained that she used this practice
with more experienced teachers who might either observe a struggling teacher and work with her
to improve, or who might need the less experienced teacher to model a new instructional strategy
for those tenured teachers that need to know how to do guided reading or small group or you
know inclusion. While most principals who reported using this strategy indicated that they did
so in order for struggling teachers to see the instructional strategies used by more experienced
teachers, Rosana viewed peer observation as a learning opportunity for both struggling and
veteran teachers.
While capitalizing on formal structure and routines during the school day was reported
most often, principals also created opportunities for staff to interact more socially. In her first
interview, Andrea explained, The health and emotion of your staff is very important. If your
staff is totally stressed out how can I cant teach anything. People dont look at that: the health
of the people working in the building. Working in a low-performing school, Andreas staff
likely experienced heightened stress related to the sanctions they faced if student achievement
did not improve. She went on to suggest that she might arrange for her staff to participate in a
yoga class, dance lessons, running club, or other afterschool group activity in order to encourage
10

camaraderie and support the emotional welfare of her staff. Andreas plans to support the
physical and mental well-being of her staff demonstrate her concern with factors that might
influence her teachers practice.
However, few principals expressed similar concerns, with only two reporting plans for
social, non-academically focused interactions between teachers. Most principals (15 of 17) in
this study described the use of tools to focus the interactions of their teachers. Given the
increasingly high stakes tied to student achievement, it is perhaps not surprising that among these
tools, data and student work were the most commonly reported. This intent to manage the
content of teachers interactions is illustrated in Oscars above remark that, our focus is the
students, a fact that he expected to be evident in the grade level meeting discussions. Similarly,
in her second interview, Adriana, a principal at a chronically low-performing school in danger of
being closed, described the color-coded data walls which displayed students performance on
standardized tests by classroom and grade level. She further explained how, in addition to
displaying these walls in the entrance way to the school and using them in teacher planning
meetings and professional development sessions, well have it in the teachers lounge, in both
teacher work areasthis is, this should be the focal point of conversations. Adriana used data to
encourage conversations in both formal settings and in less formal interactions such as those in
the teachers lounge. Samantha, a principal at brand new elementary school, described a similar
tactic in her second interview. Regarding her data walls, she explained, You cant help but to
see it everywhere because its like constant conversation about, Where are they now? Where do
they need to be? And its real clear to everybody, including the parents. So its like conversation
all the time. Given the high-stakes environment in which these principals are embedded, it
makes sense that data played such a central role. Principals were more likely to report using such
tools in the second interview, suggesting that such issues had become more salient for principals
as they gained experience in their role, and that their plans for teacher interactions had become
more specific.
Principals also expressed a desire to influence how the interactions between their teachers
occur. Fourteen principals described how they modeled the tone they hoped to see between
teachers, much as teachers are taught to model the behavior they wish to see from their students.
For example, Yvonne, in her second interview, described how she publicly recognized the
teachers that she had observed utilizing the type of instructional strategies she hoped all teachers
would use. During staff meetings and professional development sessions, Yvonnes teacher
shout-outs both highlighted the type of instructional strategies she hoped to see and established
the practice of recognizing each others best practices. After observing this practice during
several meetings, Yvonnes teachers appropriated it for themselves, and began leading the
teacher shout-outs during meetings. She explained, in our last two meetings, instead of me
having to solicit them to, Oh, can you do teacher shout-outs? Its been, Oh, Miss Lacey, were
gonna do the next teacher shout-outs. Yvonnes modeling had the intended effect, as public
recognition of quality work became integrated into the norms of teacher interactions at Yvonnes
school. Other principals described more individually oriented behaviors often as simple as
being deliberate about saying things like good morning and thank you that they used with
the expectation that teachers would mimic them in their interactions with their peers.
Motivations and Expected Outcomes of Teachers Relationships
By examining the new principals reasoning behind their relationship building efforts, we
can get a sense of what they hoped to accomplish via these relationships or interactions. Every
principal in the sample indicated that one expected outcome for teacher interactions is
11

improvement in instructional practice. This finding echoes a recurring lament of school reform
efforts the difficulty in creating and sustaining change in teachers instructional practices. An
integral challenge to school principals is how they, from outside the classroom, can influence
instructional practice in order to improve student achievement (Wahlstrom & Louis, 2008). Prior
work supports principals efforts to influence instructional practice through teachers
relationships with their peers (Bryk, et al., 1999; Bryk & Schneider, 2002; Fullan, 2002; Youngs
& King, 2002).
Principals reported several mechanisms through which they believed that supportive
relationships among their teachers would lead to improvement in instructional practice. First,
principals described the learning that is facilitated through such relationships, particularly
between struggling teachers and those with more effective instructional practices. These efforts
are also supported by work on the benefits of social capital for knowledge transfer, which is
believed to be eased by close network ties (Hansen, 1999). The literature on teachers
professional community is also supportive of knowledge transfer, as teachers share best practices
and discuss issues around teaching and learning. Moreover, repeated collaboration allows shared
norms, values and meaning to develop, and can lead to collective learning (Wahlstrom & Louis,
2008).
The belief in the power of teachers interactions to foster knowledge transfer was illustrated
by Sam in his second interview, who lamented the fact that so many of his teachers seemed to
work in isolation throughout the day, and then leave the building immediately after the close of
the school day. He stated that if teachers were working together and you know bouncing ideas
off each other, their teaching would improve. Specifically, he indicated that this would help
teachers with more effective planning and better responsiveness to student needs: You know the
4
th
grade teacher can go back to the 3
rd
grade teacher and say well what about Tommy last
year? What did you do for this? This focus on instructional improvement was also evident in
Nancys first interview, where she described the pockets of isolated success that tend to exist
in schools where teachers are not collaborating and sharing their expertise the kind of culture
she was actively trying to combat. For Nancy, teacher isolation limited the ability for large scale
improvements in instruction to occur.
Among those who indicated that knowledge transfer was a motivation for teacher
relationship building, four principals further indicated that they believed this knowledge transfer
would be facilitated by peer relationships. Principals reported feeling that their role in teacher
supervision and evaluation led to differences in how teachers perceived information from the
principal, as compared to that which came from their peers. For example, Emily speculated in
her second interview as to why teachers might respond differently to instructional feedback from
her versus their peers: I think as hard as I try people always feel like Im evaluating them. Even
if I tell them I am not evaluating you they always feel that way. Emilys explanation illustrates
how her role as teacher evaluator might interfere with a teachers perception of her feedback,
requiring her to find other means of influencing instruction. In another example, Dennis, in his
second interview, explained why he wanted teachers who had attended professional development
to return and work with their team teachers to apply what they had learned in their classrooms:
It just-, it gives teachers empowerment and ownership. Well you know Im not gonna go
to the principal and ask but I can go to Miss Lawson and ask or Mr. Samuels orand I
wont be threatened or I dont want them to know that Im not comfortable with this or
that oh theyll think that I dont know what Im doing if I ask this kind of a question.
12

Denniss tactic of using teachers to facilitate professional development for their peers avoids the
issue described by Emily. Rather than being intimidated or feeling as though theyre admitting
their own weaknesses to their supervisor, teachers are able to get support from their peers.
While knowledge transfer was the primary target of our principals relationship building
efforts, principals also believed that these ties would lead to more reflective practice by their
teachers, which would also lead to improved instruction. Working with their peers exposes
teachers to new instructional practices and beliefs, and can lead to critical reflection on and
changes to their current practice (Bryk, et al., 1999).The literature on reflective practice shows
that principals who create shared goals, work to build trust among their faculty, and establish
opportunities for collaboration and reflective practice are better able to guide reforms and
achieve school goals (Youngs & King, 2002). In her second interview, Angela explained how
engaging with ones colleagues could increase reflective practice:
I think that a lot of times we just trudge forward and we never stop to see if what
were doing is actually working. So its nice when people stop us and say, ok, what did
you do today? . If you had to teach this lesson again what would you do differently?
You know, really having them say, well I would change Now what would you do
differently about the lesson? About your instruction? Your presentation? And really
guiding them to think.
Here, Angela articulated how reflective practice involves both assessing what has been done and
determining how it could be improved. She believes that this process of reflection and diagnosis
is facilitated by conversations with colleagues. This belief was echoed by seven principals who
described how peer pressure would lead to instructional improvement. Principals indicated that
this was especially true for veteran teachers who may be more set in their ways and comfortable
with the practices they had been using over the years. These principals believed exposing those
veteran teachers to their peers practices would lead to them recognizing that their practices
might be outdated or ineffective.
In addition to a desire to influence the instructional practices of their teachers, 13 principals
in our sample also described the leadership development that is supported by such relationships.
Principals who described this aspect of teacher relationships found that benefits accrued to
teachers who were given responsibility for a project or activity that engaged their peers. This
most often occurred in professional development sessions, as teachers were asked or encouraged
to present a sample lesson or train their peers on an instructional strategy. Principals indicated
that the opportunity to stand in front of their colleagues and demonstrate an area of their
expertise led to teachers being sought out by their peers for additional assistance, thereby
creating opportunities for leadership.
Six principals cited the benefits of teacher relationships for students. By modeling the type
of interactions that were expected of students, positive interactions among teachers served to
potentially benefit the social capital of their students. In his second interview, Oscar explained:
Well, were role models to the students, first of all. And were asking the students to
work in teams, to cooperate. I mean we have to be role models to them; we have to show
them how were doing it too. You know, and I think that's-, by doing it ourselves we are
actually being an example to the students. And I see it, too. I see the studentsfeeling
important, too. You know, that what theyre doing in the classrooms is important. And so
it has to do with developing that learning community, you know.
13

Oscars description highlights the secondary benefits of teachers relationships. While a strong
professional community primarily supports teachers, it can also provide a model for students
who need to develop their own relationship building capabilities.
Reservations about Relationship Building
While the majority of our principals expressed a desire to build relationships among their
teachers, four principals indicated reservations about it. Some of these principals suggested that
such efforts were too time consuming, as demonstrated by Steve, who in his second interview
stated, I dont have time for relationships to be built. Steve maintained that relationship
building took time away from other more important goals such as instructional improvement,
which he believed could occur without addressing the relationships among teachers. Other
principals indicated that relationship building efforts were misguided, as they felt the focus
should remain on instruction and academic achievement, rather than how people feel. When
considering these responses, it is important to note that not all outcomes of social capital are
positive. Teachers may have close relationships that reinforce values and norms that are contrary
to school reform efforts (Bryk, et al., 1993) or even collaborate to mutiny (Spillane & Coldren,
under contract). In her second interview, Anastasia explained how teachers relationships could
hinder their learning from one another:
Anastasia: I think theres a wealth of knowledge within the building. But thats
something that sometimes dynamics between teachers prevent them from truly gaining
or receiving the knowledge in the right way.
Interviewer: Explain what you mean. What do you mean by that? When you say the
dynamics prevent them from gaining the knowledge
Anastasia: Um, if you and I dont get along professionallyyou might be the greatest
expert but I might not receive the message because I cant get past that idea that we dont
get along; we dont agree professionally, we dont see eye to eye. So Im not really
receiving everything you're saying to the full extent that I really should.
Anastasias response draws attention to the potentially multifaceted nature of teachers
relationships, in that personality conflicts or differences unrelated to instruction or student
learning can prevent interactions on those topics from occurring. Anastasia also underscored a
key challenge for new principals: the existing relationships between teachers. Despite the
principals best efforts, teachers prior interactions can limit the extent to which their relationship
building efforts will be successful.
Changes Over Time
While the data in this paper represent just two time points, preliminary longitudinal
analysis suggests that principals strategies and motives for teacher relationship building may
have changed over their first few months on the job. As principals encountered the numerous
demands of their new role and the realities of the existing school community, they came to
realize that many of their planned strategies would need to be adjusted. Principals often reported
that that they didnt have enough time to accommodate the needs and requests from all of their
stakeholders. In her first interview, Adriana described her plans for teacher development, and a
review of those plans revealed that she expected most of that development to occur one-on-one,
between her and individual teachers. However, in her second interview, Adriana explained how,
due to time constraints, she planned to rely more on her teachers to support one another. She
described how she came to the realization that,
14

its just that, its not physically, its not a possibility for me to continue to support
teachers in the manner that Im doing right now long run. Theres just not enough hours
in the day, there's not enough of me.
Before her teachers returned and the school year began, Adriana detailed few plans for
facilitating teacher relationships. J ust three months into the school year, she confronted the
reality that teacher support was too great a task for her to complete on her own, and shifted her
plans to help teachers support each other.
In addition to time constraints, principals encountered the difficulties with changing the
established dynamics of staff interactions. In her first interview, Angela detailed extensive goals
for team-building in order to create an ultimate learning community in which teachers and staff
regularly interacted and supported one anothers growth. By December, Angela had to confront
the reality that her relationship building efforts might not succeed with everyone. In her second
interview, she described why this might be the case:
I really thoughtlike with the two teachers who left; even with the engineerif I give
this kind of external motivation, oh, were a team and all these pep talks, all this talk, all
this support, you know Im gonna change how people are. And then I think the reality of
that grown people can be icky has like set in. You know they are what they are because
thats who they are.
The reality of her staffs recalcitrance to develop new relationships conflicted with Angelas
plans for developing a professional community. In contrast to Adrianas need to increase her
plans for relationship building, Angela realized that she needed to scale back her expectations for
the potential relationships among her teachers.
Conclusion
With a focus on new principals, the study informs our understanding of how principals
strategize to facilitate relationships among their teachers, the motivations and expected outcomes
or goals for such relationship building, as well as how they adapt their strategies as they gain
experience in their new role. While principals in this sample primarily created opportunities for
teacher interaction within the formal structure of the school day, they do so in the hopes that
relationships developed in those formal settings would carry over to teachers regular
interactions. Principals sought to develop relationships among their teachers primarily in order to
influence their instructional practices. Finally, an examination of principals responses over time
suggests that during their first few months on the job, principals adjust their strategies and
expectations for relationship building as the encounter the competing demands of their new role.
The results of this analysis suggest an approach to improving teacher effectiveness that
relies on the social resources within the school. Given the increasing attention to the social
conditions that promote school effectiveness, a better understanding of how principals
conceptualize and strategize to build social capital among their teachers can inform principal
preparation and professional development programs, as well as school improvement efforts.
While the results of this analysis stand to enhance our understanding of the role of principals in
fostering relationships among teachers, future work should examine the extent to which
principals relationship-building activities result in improvements in their teachers instruction
and their students achievement.




15

References
Adler, P. S., & Kwon, S. W. (2002). Social capital: Prospects for a new concept. Academy of
Management Review, 27(1), 17-40.
Allison, D., & Allison, P. (1993). Both ends of a telescope: Experience and expertise in principal
problem solving. Educational Administration Quarterly, 29(3), 302.
Blase, J ., & Blase, J . (1999). Principals instructional leadership and teacher development:
Teachers perspectives. Educational Administration Quarterly, 35(3), 349-378.
Bourdieu, P. (1986). The forms of capital. In J . G. Richardson (Ed.), Handbook of theory and
research for the sociology of education (pp. 241258). New York, NY: Greenwood
Press.
Bryk, A. S., Camburn, E., & Louis, K. S. (1999). Professional community in Chicago elementary
schools: Facilitating factors and organizational consequences. Educational
Administration Quarterly, 35(5), 751-781.
Bryk, A. S., Easton, J . Q., Kerbow, D., Rollow, S. G., & Sebring, P. A. (1993). A view from the
elementary schools: The state of reform in Chicago. Chicago: Consortium on Chicago
School Research.
Bryk, A. S., & Schneider, B. L. (2002). Trust in schools: A core resource for improvement. New
York: Russell Sage Foundation.
Coburn, C. E., & Russell, J . L. (2008). District policy and teachers' social networks. Educational
Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 30(3), 203-235.
Coleman, J . S. (1988). Social capital in the creation of human capital. American Journal of
Sociology, 94(S1), S95-S120.
Earley, P., & Weindling, D. (2004). Understanding school leadership. Thousand Oaks, CA:
SAGE Publications, Inc.
Frank, K. A., Zhao, Y., & Borman, K. (2004). Social capital and the diffusion of innovations
within organizations: The case of computer technology in schools. Sociology of
Education, 77(2), 148-171.
Fullan, M. (2002). The role of leadership in the promotion of knowledge management in schools.
Teachers and Teaching, 8(3), 409-419.
Glaser, B. G., & Strauss, A. L. (1967). The discovery of grounded theory: Strategies for
qualitative research. Piscataway, NJ : AldineTransaction.
Hallinger, P., & Heck, R. H. (1996). Reassessing the principal's role in school effectiveness: A
review of empirical research, 1980-1995. Educational Administration Quarterly, 32(1),
5-44.
Hansen, M. T. (1999). The search-transfer problem: The role of weak ties in sharing knowledge
across organization subunits. Administrative Science Quarterly, 44(1), 82-85.
Hargreaves, D. (1999). The knowledge-creating school. British Journal of Educational Studies,
47(2), 122-144.
Hoy, W. K., Hannum, J ., & Tschannen-Moran, M. (1998). Organizational climate and student
achievement: A parsimonious and longitudinal view. Journal of School Leadership, 8(4),
336-359.
Inkpen, A. C., & Tsang, E. W. K. (2005). Social capital, networks, and knowledge transfer.
Academy of Management Review, 30(1), 146-165.
Lee, V. E., Bryk, A. S., & Smith, J . B. (1993). The organization of effective secondary schools.
Review of Research in Education, 19(1), 171-267.
16

Leithwood, K., Louis, K. S., Anderson, S., & Wahlstrom, K. (2004). How leadership influences
student learning: Review of research (pp. 90): The Wallace Foundation.
Lin, N. (2001). Social capital: A theory of social structure and action. Cambridge, UK:
Cambridge University Press Cambridge.
Louis, K. S. (2006). Changing the culture of schools: Professional community, organizational
learning, and trust. Journal of School Leadership, 16(5), 477-487.
Louis, K. S., & Marks, H. M. (1998). Does professional community affect the classroom?
Teachers' work and student experiences in restructuring schools. American Journal of
Education, 106(4), 532-575.
Louis, K. S., Marks, H. M., & Kruse, S. (1996). Teachers' professional community in
restructuring schools. American Educational Research Journal, 33(4), 757-798.
Nahapiet, J ., & Ghoshal, S. (1998). Social capital, intellectual capital, and the organizational
advantage. Academy of Management Review, 23(2), 242-266.
Oplatka, I. (2004). The principal s career stage: an absent element in leadership perspectives.
International Journal of Leadership in Education, 7(1), 43-55.
Penuel, W. R., & Riel, M. (2007). The "new" science of networks and the challenge of school
change. Phi Delta Kappan, 88(8), 611-615.
Penuel, W. R., Riel, M., Krause, A., & Frank, K. (2009). Analyzing teachers' professional
interactions in a school as social capital: A social network approach. Teachers College
Record, 111(1), 124-163.
Small, M. L. (2009). Unanticipated gains: Origins of network inequality in everyday life. New
York, NY: Oxford University Press.
Spillane, J . P., & Coldren, A. F. (under contract). Managing to lead: Taking a distributed
perspective to diagnosis and design in school leadership and management. New York,
NY: Teachers College Press.
Spillane, J . P., Parise, L. M., & Sherer, J . Z. (2010). Organizational routines as coupling
mechanisms: Policy, school administration, and the technical core. American Educational
Research Journal.
Wahlstrom, K. L., & Louis, K. S. (2008). How teachers experience principal leadership: The
roles of professional community, trust, efficacy, and shared responsibility. Educational
Administration Quarterly, 44(4), 458-495.
Weindling, D., & Dimmock, C. (2006). Sitting in the hot seat: new headteachers in the UK.
Journal of Educational Administration, 44(4), 326-340.
Youngs, P. (2007). How elementary principals beliefs and actions influence new teachers
experiences. Educational Administration Quarterly, 43(1), 101-137.
Youngs, P., & King, M. B. (2002). Principal leadership for professional development to build
school capacity. Educational Administration Quarterly, 38(5), 643-670.