Trust is crucial in many areas and levels of society. School is a place for children and students’ learning that promotes personal development to become active, creative and responsible individuals and citizens. Trust between principals and teachers is important regarding collaboration, professional learning and the quality of teaching. Results from various international studies suggest that the interaction between the principal and teachers and the teachers' trust in the principal is closely connected to a school climate that is favorable to students' learning (Price, 2015; Tschannen-Moran & Gareis, 2015).

Trust is crucial for leadership. It is a part of caring for and loving of others, and the way a leader use experience, imagination and empathy that makes life of the other person as eliberating as possible (Løgstrup, 1994, 2007). To create trust is not only something for the other person, rather trust in a relationship makes it possible for both lives to flourish. This is also the case in a principal-teacher relation. To show trust is to completely open oneself up (Løgstrup, 1994) and contains a willingness to make yourself vulnerable for the other and to take a risk, believing, that the other will meet your needs (Blom, 2022; Hoy & Tschannen-Moran, 2000; Løgstrup, 1994).

Vulnerability has an important role in a trusting relation and to be open in contributing to the life of the other. This natural vulnerability and responsiveness to one another is an important part of leading in schools, for example in collaborations, professional learning and teaching. Relational vulnerability can be understood as the “intrinsic ability of humans to be open to their experiences, reflect upon their physical and mental states of existence, and navigate their lives” (Satama, Garcia-Lorenzo & Seeck, 2023, p. 4). 

Vulnerability can be seen as both positive and negative, but is traditionally understood as being related to weakness, dependency, and powerlessness (Gilson, 2014). Positive vulnerability can be seen in the willingness to be honest and open to learning by accepting our not knowing everything and the possibility of being wrong (Mayer, La Fevre & Robinsson, 2017).  As Gilson (2014) states “epistemic vulnerability is what makes learning, and thus a reduction of ignorance, possible” (p. 93). 

Negative vulnerability can for example be the possibility of embarrassment, emotional pain or feelings of powerlessness, which can result in defensive or ineffective behavior (Lasky, 2005). This affects the trusting relationship between a principal and teacher and may cause negative consequences on students learning.

Leaders and those who hold positional power need to model the courage it takes to confront and discuss difficult issues, especially if these can evoke emotional reactions (Mayer, La Fevre & Robinsson, 2017). For principals this can be issues regarding the cooperation within the school, professional learning and school development. Thus, this includes that vulnerability is also about being sensitive and responsive towards the other.

The notion of vulnerability is important when thinking about how leaders can build more trusting relationships (Mayer et.al., 2017). 

Previous research focuses on the broader concept of trust and this study aims at examining how school leaders and teachers think about relational vulnerability and how it manifests in their everyday school life.

Purpose

The purpose of the study is to examine how principals show vulnerability and responsiveness in their leadership in schools as a part of trust, with a particular focus on the principal-teacher relationship.

Research questions

How do principals describe their actions that involve vulnerability and responsiveness to other persons? 

What are the possible reasons for principals’ willingness to be vulnerable to others?

How do teachers experience principals’ actions in regards to vulnerability and responsiveness?

This study has a qualitative approach. Principals will be in-depth interviewed about how they show vulnerability and responsiveness in their everyday leadership. From an interpersonal perspective and to gain a greater understanding about principals’ leadership, teachers will also be interviewed. It is necessary to take into account both the actions of the leader and the receptivity of the other. Using qualitative analysis, focus is to explore the meaning in the participants descriptions (Kvale & Brinkmann, 2014). Løgstrup’s (1994) theory of the ethical demand and his view on trust will be used to achieve a deeper analysis. Interviews will be conducted with 5-10 principals and 5-10 teachers. The study will focus on schools with students at the age of approximately 13-15 years old and in small to large schools with a number of 300 – 600 students.

The research aims to contribute to a greater understanding of vulnerability and the concept of trust in principals’ everyday leadership and to further research. Results will be communicated through publications in peer-reviewed journals and presentations at research conferences. While it is difficult to determine prior to data collection, expected outcomes from the interviews with principals and teachers will hopefully contribute to a deeper understanding of the concept of trust and vulnerability. This will perhaps further give an opportunity to explore what may enable and constrain vulnerability and trust in leadership and what attitude that lays behind the way principals lead.

Blom, T. (2022). Time for trust:Critical moments in principals´everyday work. Karlstad University Studies. https://www.divaportal.org/smash/get/diva2:1653929/FULLTEXT01.pdf Gilson, E. C. 2014. Beyond Bounded Selves and Places: The Relational Making of Vulnerability and Security. Journal of the British Society for Phenomenology 49 (3): 229–242. Hoy, W.K. & Tschannen-Moran, M. (2000). A multidisciplinary analysis of the nature, meaning, and measurement of trust. Review of Educational Research. 70(4) 547-593 Kvale, S., & Brinkmann, S. (2014). Den kvalitativa forskningsintervjun (3 uppl.). Studentlitteratur. Lasky, S. (2005). A sociocultural approach to understanding teacher identity, agency and professional vulnerability in a context of secondary school reform. Teaching and Teacher Education 21(8) 899-916, doi: 10.1016/j.tate.2005.06.003. Løgstrup, K. E. (1994). Det etiska kravet. Daidalos. (Original 1956) Løgstrup, K. E. (2007). Beyond the Ethical Demand. University of Notre Dame Press. Meyer, F., Le Fevre, D.M. and Robinson, V.M.J. (2017). How leaders communicate their vulnerability: implications for trust building, International Journal of Educational Management, Vol. 31 No. 2, pp. 221-235. https://doi-org.bibproxy.kau.se/10.1108/IJEM-11-2015-0150 Price, H. E. (2015). Principals’ social interactions with teachers. Journal of Educational Administration, 53(1), 116-139. https://doi.org/10.1108/jea- 02-2014-0023 Satama, S., & Seeck, H., & Garcia-Lorenzo, L. (2023): Embracing relational vulnerabilities at the top: a study of managerial identity work amidst the insecurities of the self, Culture and Organization, DOI: 10.1080/14759551.2023.2291696 Tschannen-Moran, M., & Gareis, C. (2015). Faculty trust in the principal: an essential ingredient in high-performing schools. Journal of Educational Administration, 53(1), 66-92. https://doi.org/10.1108/JEA-02-2014-0024