Contemporary principals face increased accountability for school improvement, diminished revenues and resources, heightened parental expectations, and changing demographics (Wells & Klocko, 2015). They often find themselves dealing with an increasingly high level of work intensification, uncertainty, and complexity in school operation and policy implementation. Such work conditions exacerbate resistance and antagonism among school principals and hinder organizational change (Gronn, 2003; Starr, 2011; Yap & Chrispeels, 2004). In order to cope with the numerous demands associated with the role, some principals are becoming more creative in deciding when to break the rules, when to short circuit the system, and when it is more important to risk having to beg forgiveness instead of asking permission (CAP, 2014; Hughes, 1999; Ubben, Hughes & Norris, 2001). They are inclined to make use of various subversive tactics to get their work done. Such leadership practice is essentially the exercise of subversiveness as a process of influence that strategically challenges and disrupts status quo and resists policies and practices that are counterproductive and unjust.

Thus far, research that examines its subversiveness is rather limited. The negative connotation that the term “subversive” carries makes subversive leadership almost a taboo in both literature and the educational setting, not to mention in leadership development in which subversiveness is an equally tabooed proposition. To address this gap, this study looks into principals’ subversive practices to gain insight into how and when subversiveness is perceived and exercised differently in principals’ role, what challenges and dilemmas it has in changing the political dynamics at micro and macro levels, and what strategies and tactics principals tend to use in the process.

Theoretical framework 

This study uses the role theory and power tactics as a theoretical framework to guide the inquiry. The subversive activity occurs in social interactions in which actors may have to play a set of roles (role set) simultaneously (Fellows & Kahn, 2013; Turner, 2006). In the case of school principals, their role has significantly expanded over the years (Goodwin et al., 2005). In order to meet various sets of expectations, school principals have to balance different aspects of their roles and involves not only role-taking and role-playing, but also role-making (Turner, 1962, 2006).

Principals’ role taking, role playing and role making involve power tactics which is used to analyse how subversive leaders use various tactics to push or prompt others into particular action for the benefit of their students. Power tactics can be classified into three dimensions: softness, rationality, and laterality (Carson, Carson, & Roe, 1993; Fairholm, 2009; Pfeffer, 2011). Soft tactics are more indirect and interpersonal, whereas hard tactics are direct and harsh. Rational tactics make use of reasoning, logic, and judgement. Non-rational tactics rely on emotionality and misinformation. Laterality of power tactics are categorized as bilateral and unilateral. The bilateral tactics involve reciprocity on the part of both the person influencing and his or her target. The unilateral tactics are enacted without any participation on the part of the target, and include disengagement and fait accompli. Through this framework, this study analyses how subversive leaders opt for different power tactics with various interest groups under certain situations and how they shift between power tactics when they face resistance to work the system for the wellbeing of their students.

Qualitative research design was used for this study. Qualitative research can provide an in-depth and detailed understanding of meanings, attitudes and actions of school principals in exercising subversiveness in their leadership practices (Cohen, Manion, & Morrison, 2011). Data collection involved approximately one-hour, semi-structured interviews with 18 school principals in Metro Vancouver, Canada. Interviews were conducted both on site and via Skype. Current accountability school reform (Hallinger & Heck, 1996; Leithwood, Harris & Hopkins, 2008) adds a unique dynamic on school principals’ leadership practice. Therefore, elementary and secondary school principals were selected as participants for this study. Participants were selected through recruitment ads distributed through the e-Newsletter of the British Columbia Principals’ and Vice-Principals’ Association. Both elementary and secondary school principals who responded to the ads were recruited for interviews. The interview data were collected with 9 male and 9 female principals from four district school boards. Interviews offer a means for exploring in detail complex subjects (Merriam, 2009). The interviews gleaned data on principals’ work contexts, their perceptions of subversiveness, and anecdotes and examples of being subversive in their practices. They were asked, for example, to describe their political struggles, obstacles and any resistance they encounter, and strategies and tactics they use in dealing with social and political pressure. An effort was made to ensure that principals selected represent different career stages, gender, school locations, and ethnic and cultural backgrounds. Interview data were analyzed using a constant comparative method (Bogdan & Biklen, 1998) which focused on the identification of regularities or patterns in interview transcripts and notes through an interactive process during which the data are constantly compared.

The participants shared their insights on the following themes: the rationale for being subversive, perceptions of subversiveness, the challenges and dilemmas, and subversive tactics. The following provides some highlights and detailed results are presented in the full paper. What drives principals to be subversive are the difficulty in gaining the board’s permission, urgency for a change, and the moral purpose of their leadership. Being subversive is sometimes a choice of no choice, particularly in situations where it is imperative to get their work done, but going through the proper procedure to ask for permission or following the guidelines does not allow them to fulfil their task in time. The urgency for a change is another reason that leads to principals’ subversiveness. Being subversive is not about breaking the rules, but doing what is best for the students and the community. Subversion means different things for different people and principals have mixed feelings towards it. Although the political implications of subversiveness may make principals uneasy, they are not deterred from the attempt to transform the established social structures and counterproductive practices. They either refine their roles or modify their expectations in order to succeed in their position. Principals expressed significant concerns about being subversive. Such concerns are either about their own image or the relationships with their staff and the district school boards. Being subversive may cause principals to be deemed as non-teamplayer or troublemaker, which potentially leads to less opportunity for collaboration with various stakeholders, less support from the board, loss of relational connection or trust, and an unhealthy environment. Being subversive may risk of losing control, incurring more grievance from the staff, causing misunderstanding by others, and even being perceived as more subversive than it actually is. Principals tend to use soft tactics to transform counterproductive policies and practices

CAP. (2014). The future of the principalship in Canada: A national research study. Kanata, ON. Carson et al. (1993). Social Power Bases: A Meta-Analytic Examination of Interrelationships and Outcomes. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 23(14), 1150-1169. Cohen et al. (2011). Research methods in education. (7th ed.). London: Routledge-Falmer. Bogdan, R. C., & Biklen, S. (1998). Qualitative research for education: An introduction to theory and methods. Needham Heights, MA: Allyn & Bacon. Fairholm, G. W. (2009). Organizational power politics: Tactics in organizational leadership. Santa Barbara, Calif.: Praeger. Fellows, S., & Kahn, W. A. (2013). Role theory. In E. H. Kessler (Ed.), Encyclopaedia of management theory (pp. 671–674). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Goodwin et al. (2005). The changing role of the secondary school principal in the United States: An historical perspective. Journal of Educational Administration and History, 37(1), 1–17. Gronn, P. (2003). The new work of educational leaders: Changing leadership practice in an era of school reform. London: Paul Chapman. Glaser, B. G., & Strauss, A. L. (1967). The discovery of grounded theory: Strategies for qualitative research. Chicago: Aldine Publication. Hallinger, P., & Heck, R. H. (1996). Reassessing the principal's role in school effectiveness: A review of empirical research, 1980-1995. EAQ, 32(1), 5-44. Hughes, L. W. (Ed.). (1999). The principal as leader. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Merrill. Leithwood et al. (2008). Seven strong claims about successful school leadership. School Leadership & Management, 28(1), 27-42. Merriam, S. B. (2009). Qualitative research: A guide to design and implementation (2nd ed.). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Pfeffer, J. (2011). Power: Why some people have it and others don’t. New York, NY: HarperCollins. Starr, K. (2011). Principals and the politics of resistance to change. EMAL, 39, 646–660. Turner, R. H. (1962). Role taking: Process versus conformity. In A. Rose (Ed.), Human behaviour and social processes (pp. 20–40). Boston, MA: Houghton-Mifflin. Ubben, G. C., Hughes, L. W., & Norris, C. J. (2001). The principal: Creative leadership for effective schools (4th ed.). Boston: Allyn and Bacon. Wells, C. M., & Klocko, B. A. (2015). Can teacher leadership reduce principal stress? JSL, 25, 313–344. Yap, M., & Chrispeels, J. H. (2004). Sharing leadership: Principals’ perceptions. In J. H. Chrispeels (Ed.), Learning to lead together: e promise and challenge of sharing leadership. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.