Differences in Power Relations

Government interference in schools and the locus of power (seen as being government itself) was a source of frustration across both Saudi and English contexts. However, the Saudi middle leaders highlighted that interference as political changes being imposed upon the education system by Western influences. Safia (S4/S) expresses her frustration at changes being made for political reasons: “the West and America are interfering in our life and our generation’s lives.” In a global economy, Saudi Arabia needs to ensure its systems match international standards, but this does come at a cost, according to these middle leaders. Saod (S5/S) comments that “foreign educational programmes in the primary school will not be successful due to the inappropriate educational environment we have here”. There is, therefore, an awareness that Saudi government policy is influenced by foreign power, and this may even have an impact on the way they are reluctant to interact with each other in a collaborative way; they may feel that this is

unfamiliar to their way of thinking, and this may even be why they constantly refer to guidelines Abdurrahman (2015) brought this to mind when he suggested that Arabic researchers and thinkers are approaching education from a colonised mindset, not least because so much material is available in English and American literature. It is sometimes forgotten that there are many factors involved in education and that knowledge is constructed from cultural identity. According to middle leaders, the Saudi education policy needs to be firmly embedded in its own culture, even though it may still be adhering to international standards.

The sense of pride felt in the nationalistic views of Saudi middle leaders is not echoed by their English counterparts because of the differences in power dynamics. This pride links power to culture, which are two fundamental components that are essential in a collectivist mind-set, described above in relation to Hofstede’s value dimensions. The Saudi middle leaders seem to approach this dynamic as an ‘us versus them’ perspective, where the Western ideology simply could not apply to the Saudi context. While the English teachers also demonstrated frustrations with the western approach, they did so for very different reasons.

The English do retain a strong national identity, where a sense of national identity seems to be lacking in the Saudi schools, and this power comes from the approach they have to each other. One of the main differences in practice was that English middle leaders were found to cooperate with their colleagues, and during the interview the tone and words they used about their colleagues, such as ‘team-building’, ‘supportive role’, and ‘formal meetings’ and ‘informal discussions’, were indicative of some measures undertaken by the middle leaders in England to establish the school as a collegium. These words convey a strong sense of collegial relationship between the middle leader and the junior teachers, which is in line with Ofsted’s emphasis on collaboration, cooperation and building relationships with senior, middle and junior members of the organisation. Helen’s (S2/E)

comment that she ‘‘supports others to do their jobs’’ contrasts with Huda’s (S4/S) declaration that she is there to ‘‘support the mission of the King’’. This shows the difference in ways these middle leaders reflect on their role and the Saudi view is further emphasised by Sami’s (S6/S) comment that his headteacher will ‘‘nicely ask me to support his decision’’. Relationships in the Saudi context are related to the enforcement of power, whereas the English context reflects more power sharing.

The collegial approach in the English context seems much more informal, in terms of power, than the Saudi perspective, which is nationalistic and supported by official documentation and culture. This informality may be largely culturally based, as Saudi culture is generally seen as quite traditional and rigid in comparison to English culture. This traditional nature can be seen beyond the classroom in terms of dress, religion, and gender relations. Therefore, while these differences in power exist, the outcome may be a direct result of underlying cultural components.

It is important, however, that there is recognition that power is not focused on one domain and that the middle leaders also have much to offer; Hallinger (2003) cautions that it is easy to ignore the role of middle leaders if too much emphasis is placed on one source of power. These middle leaders can enhance the vision and value of their organisation (GTC, 2012). They are the ones who can make the vision into reality (Nelson and Quinn, 2016).

In this research, it was also found that some middle leaders in Saudi comply with the enforcement of government power but with feelings of resistance. For instance, Safia (S4/S) demonstrates her feeling of rejection by emphasising the fact that leading cannot happen in a system run under the rule of ‘a military system’. Her feelings of resistance are connected to a hierarchical military system, where soldiers are simply expected to obey. In connection to the rigidity of the hierarchical system and employees' feeling of resistance, Casey (1995) reveals that although employees may comply with power

imposed from the top down, the level of their satisfaction is low, which in turn influences the degree of acceptance of, or resistance to, the authority’s power. Rachel (S1/E), the English middle leader, is prepared to change her behaviour (as argued by Foucault, 1977) when conditions require it; “if funding is reduced there’s not a lot we can do with that other than micromanaging our staff very effectively.” She sees that the hierarchical system protects the legitimacy of each person in the school and is defined by the structure of the schools. Therefore, she would comply with the power of the authority who maintains that power: “I could go to the headteacher, deputy or assistant head …who I felt was most appropriate to talk to about it.” A similar statement was echoed in research completed by Ribbins (2007), which suggests that some middle leaders think that working in line with management is necessary, to make sure that the school is performing effectively.

Important for this thesis is the way in which Saudi and English middle leaders have different ideas about what constitutes support: the Saudis support a system, whereas the English support each other. This is a fundamental difference in overall perspectives. The literature generally indicates that there are aspects of power that are directly related to cultural values. In these value dimensions, there is a certain satisfaction among Saudi middle leaders from working within the system, whereas the English teachers demonstrate more instances where they question that authority. While the outcome in both situations may be the same (i.e. managing the link between teachers and senior management) both outcomes seem effective in their different ways. It is also important to recognise that Saudi schools may be influenced by Western ideologies not conducive to their own culture.