Blazing New Trails - Connexions

54 CRITICAL ISSUES IN SHARED LEADERSHIP
understanding of professional learning communities and internalize their potential benefits.
Then, the principal must lead the staff through the change process (Williams et al., 2009).
Wetherill and Applefield (2005) described in detail how that role shifts across the premature
change state, the hesitant change state, the developing change state, and, finally, in the
established change state. In large measure, their descriptions of the principal’s role closely
parallel Hersey and Blanchard’s (2000) situational leadership model.
To move to the development of professional learning communities, principals must be
open to large-scale change (Silins, Mulford, & Zarins, 2002), but must limit the number of
change initiatives being undertaken at a given time (Rasberry, with Majahan, 2008). The most
difficult adjustment principals are called upon to make is the distribution of responsibility,
power, and leadership among the staff, in a fully shared, non-hierarchical model (Leithwood,
Thomlinson, & Genge, 1996; Murphy et al., 2002; Silins & Mulford, 2004; Silins, Mulford, &
Zarins, 2002). This adjustment involves giving staff the authority to manage their own
problem-solving meetings and committees in an autonomous manner. To enable this to
happen effectively, the principal must alter the working conditions to facilitate collaborative
planning time (Leithwood et al., 1996; Rasberry, with Mahajan, 2008). For the problem
solving to be effective, the principal must understand the learning needs of individuals and
groups (Printy, 2008) and help to create professional development opportunities for the full
staff (Leithwood et al., 1996). The principal must also ensure that other needed resources are
available (Printy, 2008).
However, as discussed in the previous section, moving to professional learning
communities not only calls for new school structures, it calls for a new school culture.
Consequently, the principal must foster a democratic culture (Williams et al., 2009), help to
establish organizational harmony and shared commitment (Wetherill & Applefield, 2005),
seek staff consensus on vision and goals by encouraging staff to reflect on what they are
trying to accomplish with students and how to accomplish it (Silins & Mulford, 2004),
acknowledge changes made (Wetherill & Applefield, 2005), promote an atmosphere of
caring, trust, and respect (Silins et al., 2002), and provide a proper mix of incentives and
sanctions (Printy, 2008). These roles represent a monumental change and a marked effort for
most principals.
CONCLUSIONS
On the surface, professional learning communities appear to offer potential for
improving schools, both for the students and for the adults who work there. They hold
potential for improving student performance and for helping to meet the social needs
(Maslow, 1943, 1970), achievement needs (Herzberg, 1966; McClelland, 1961), relationship
needs (Herzberg), and growth needs (Alderfer, 1972) of teachers. However, because they are
a second-order change (Cuban, 1988), they represent such a significant level of change in the
status quo as to threaten teachers’ and principals’ security (Maslow, 1943, 1970) or existence
(Alderfer, 1972) needs. They call for changes in the individuals, the formal organization, the
informal organization, and in the very culture of schools. Such changes will not come easily.
This chapter has attempted to provide a synopsis of the knowledge base on professional
learning communities, including their definition, characteristics, potential benefits, potential
barriers, and the principal’s role in helping to establish and maintain them. Hopefully, this
will help to guide schools moving in the direction of becoming professional learning
communities.