'Musings about employment 'fits'
It is not so much finding a "good" job that is important but rather finding an employer that is as good a "fit" for you as it is for them. This is as important for an employee as it is for the employer. Sometimes with the pressures of finance, family, living cost and maybe even feeling unsettled or unhappy in a current position it can be easy to forget that moving into a new employment position is a two way street. It is as important that any new employer can meet your expectations as much as you meet theirs. Using this premise the eventual outlook is likely to be that you find a "good workplace" even if the view of others maybe somewhat contradictory to your own. It would not do if we all enjoyed the exact same work environment or conditions. All employment environments are not equal, nor are all positions suited to everyone. This is to be expected with different management styles, focus on different philosophies, the use of or restriction of devices and of course the attitude, manner and behaviour of management and leadership teams that can often make an employment situation enjoyable or destroy any desire to drag an unwilling carcass out of bed every morning to arrive at work. This equally applies to the teaching profession which is the focus of the rest of this article.
Some schools have a 'special ethos' and if able to work within the parameters set by that ethos then all should be harmonious. However, sometimes the extent of a 'special ethos' may not be entirely clear from outset and may for example include bias towards men in management teams as is the case in particular schools set up as a closed communities and having students only from their own beliefs or culture. In some such communities females are excluded from being formal members of the Board of Trustees or from CEO status and teachers are not permitted to encourage female students on to any form of education after completion of their closed school education and also prohibits external resource material or discussions about the wider world that falls outside of community beliefs. Of course such archaic philosophies will have, even if discretely an effect on staff and students but are acceptable to many.
The negative aspect of excluding women from a Board of Trustees or from CEO status is that archaic stereotypes are enforced, even if discretely, not only on females within the community but also on female students and staff. It is then inevitable that within a male dominated system and hierarchy that those females who do rise to Deputy Principal or even Principal are still seen as lesser in value than a male counterpart and to accommodate this have to themselves reflect an aggressive stance to maintain their position. For some, working in such an environment the hierarchy and male dominance will have no day-to-day implications but there is a common consensus that such employment conditions are not conducive to equal rights for staff and particularly not for students. Such schools may promote the lack of external resources, prohibition of female career discussion or higher education discussions or conversations about the wider world in general which will make it much more difficult for teachers to leave these types of employments in the future. This is compounded by some communities prohibiting non community members, usually teaching staff from being able to eat or drink with community members or students reducing cohesiveness and setting an 'us' and 'themn' mentality which may not be conducive to collegiality or trust. Subsequent issues for teachers then wishing to leave such an environment for new employment which allows progression and equality and acceptance of all, including other ethnic groups whom are excluded from closed communities is the lack of equality, general inclusion and contact with other ethnicities.
It is particularly saddening that as a result of some schools closed community philosophies the Te Reo and Maori components of Registered Teacher Criteria are exempted. One would think that living in a country where one of the official languages is Te Reo and where a rich history in Maori culture, spirituality, art and language exists that schools in New Zealand should ever be exempted from these criteria. It would be a rich experience for students in any closed environment to at very least learn about the country and the heritage that makes New Zealand what it is today without excluding Te Reo and Maori from RTC's let alone encouraging exclusion of Asian and other cultures in the processes. With so many wonderful professional individuals able to relay topics related to Marae's and Maori customs and the lands we now inhabit it would, in my view, not be difficult to employ external professionals to lead such content in a way that does not question the parameters of any 'special ethos' school that otherwise feel the need to apply for exemption. Having no Maori or other ethnic group within a school does not mean exclusion of being able to teach to those groups nor from having lessons with appropriate content for those groups if only to establish a more tolerant and accepting set of youths within an otherwise closed community that has no other opportunity to experience how others learn and hence have the potential to increase in a lack of tolerance, acceptance or knowledge of others. Conversely and positively, it is these exclusions and exemptions that render more enrolments for such closed community schools who may promote themselves as excluded from 'worldlies' - anyone not of their own community.
It is not only male dominated or closed community schools that have philosophies or management styles that may not suit everyone. With such a large number of schools and layers of management there will always be those who thrive on the perceived power that they believe they hold. One only has to read news articles to acknowledge abuses of position which include lies, deceit and unprofessional behaviour towards staff and students. These are not isolated cases but can appear in any decile school in any location across New Zealand and relate to both men and women in power. Some management styles thrive on power they believe they have been endowed with when in reality the position they hold comes with a significant amount of responsibility to lead by example and show a deeper compassion, understanding and kindly view of human nature in order to serve those below them in the best possible way, not being least the students. Unfortunately, some see their positions as a right to bully and intimidate and spread malicious lies with a focus to discredit anyone who may stand up against bad practice, behaviour or who in their perceived roll of dominance lash out due to suffering from 'tall poppy syndrome'. For such people the overwhelming need to spread slanderous untruths about others is nothing more than a reflection of their own insecurities and inability to celebrate the success of others. Tall Poppy Syndrome is present throughout many workforces and destroys morale and collegiality. It aims to build the perpetrator up and provide justification for their own behaviour by making an innocent but less 'powerful' or 'established' person the target for their malice by way of endeavouring to discredit them for exemplary completion of a task or who may be seen to have outshone others in some way. Such negative people exist at every layer of employment and there is not much anyone can do when in other ways they contribute successfully, usually in a solo capacity, to their workplace. Solo endeavours generally include funding or particularly useful contacts or activities where they are most dominant over projects and recognise others as mere minions serving the success of one rather than all. For anyone finding themselves in such a situation it is important to continue to 'shine' and find a more collegial and professional workplace where 21st Century leadership has evolved beyond dictatorship and individual ego's. Aim to share future successes with more like minded, collegial and supportive people who celebrate each others successes rather than try and tear each other down.
It isn't all bad. There are schools, which are generally in the majority who have Board of Trustees who are focused on student wellbeing and finding ways to support teachers in finding ways to assist students on to all they can be. Leaders and managers who do not lead by threats, cohesion, mistruths and power games but who are truly inspirational and motivational leaders that are open to dialogue, feedback, collegial cooperation and who recognise teachers as much as students as individuals, create environments that are safe to explore, create and try new things and encourage working as a team allowing everyone to contribute their own strengths and support each others weaknesses. Individuals are seen as being of worth and value and are encouraged to contribute, celebrate individualism along with successes and where failures are seen as a stepping stone to something learnt rather than to be punished or used to discredit one another. Great leaders are those that lead by example, who have fine tuned social skills and who advocate for equity as well as equality for all. They recognise the value of having a motivated and contented staff who in turn can contribute to student achievement and a healthy work environment. Managers and leaders who get the very best from employees are those who are seen during the good times and those most challenging periods, who celebrate achievement rather than just make themselves viewable when dishing out reprimands. The greatest leaders have lead by compassion, fairly and equally without bias or ideas of grandeur or exclusion. This doesn't mean that difficult decisions are not made or uncomfortable situations or issues are left unaddressed but rather they are faced and dealt with in a professional and transparent manner allowing support, feedback and fair outcomes for all, that in conclusion prove beneficial for everyone. Great leaders recognise the importance of teams and their being a part of it rather than above and beyond it remaining untouchable and unapproachable to the masses below them. They have a grasp of the greater picture - doing good to others so all can succeed and thrive even if this means at time making difficult decisions. There are multitudes of articles that outline what makes a great manager, leader or boss. Not all styles will suit everyone. What fits one person may not fit another and choosing an employer is again as important as an employer choosing the employee.
Overall, schools are not equal in management style, resource access (which is not necessarily related to decile) or in employee contentment. Where-ever one chooses to work, whether within a closed community with strict parameters governing information and advocating even if discretely inequality and exclusion of other ethnicities, a school with a specific religious or cultural ethos, or a general open public school - no-one can tell you where you would best 'fit' or where you would feel most comfortable. This is as much your choice and decision as it is an employers choice to pick you!
What often makes the difference to most employees is having supportive management that encourages professional development and individual growth that in the end will benefit the workplace and in regard to teachers, their endeavour to serve. At the end of the day if an employment situation 'fits' the individual they are more likely to thrive and succeed and subsequently engage and motivate others. Teachers are more likely to be able to motivate students, whatever the environment, if they are content within their environment whatever that may be for the individual. Finding that 'fit' is as important for individuals as it is for the school as a whole.
When all the cogs are grinding together to the same aims and goals then no matter whether a school has a special ethos or not, is high or low decile; the 'machine' is more likely to render results with contented staff employed under leadership they can respect and look up to and within an environment that reflects fairness and the individual teachers comfort zone. The range of schools, management styles, philosophies and hierarchal models of leadership are so varied in New Zealand that there will be an employment position that best suits each teacher. If that is within a closed community with no Maori or other cultural content at all or whether in a large public multi-cultural school depends on the individual. If it includes 21st Century leadership or more traditional authoritative and dictatorship management styles is personal preference. The aim is, find the best fit for yourself where you can thrive and serve your students in the best possible way. Whatever your choice, the decision to accept a role is as important as that made to make you an offer. It is, then, just as well that all schools, philosophies and management styles are not equal as to cater for individual choice whatever our personal opinions or thoughts maybe about any specific ethos or style. For myself, I wouldn't advocate exclusion of anyone, but each to their own.
