A personal reflection on the strength and the challenges of the five core suggestions made by Walker and Riordan on Leading Collective Capacity in Culturally Diverse Schools: 

Building culture and capacity with school staff is certainly included in the job description of any school leader. Often the school leadership is a shared role between administrators and management. Be it one individual or a group, the manner in which leaders relate with each other, with staff, and with students, is directly linked to creating and influencing the cultural milieu of the school and in building the capacity of the staff. Walker and Riordan echo these thoughts in their article, Leading Collective Capacity in Culturally Diverse Schools. 

Though teachers at the international school I work at differ in the number of years of teaching experience, type of teaching experience, countries they’ve worked in, age, interests, religion, caste, etc., we are all usually clubbed as similar because of our shared Indian ethnicity. Therefore, Walker and Riordan draw our attention to intersectionality theories that helps us better understand diversity.

Intersectionality looks at the crossroads where “gender, class, religious beliefs, age, and education as well as culture all interact…to influence staff attitudes and behaviour. These interconnected factors determine our identity, dispositions, how we view ourselves, how we relate to others and, importantly, how others relate to us (Walker & Riordan, 2010).” 

After defining diversity, the authors reflect on their survey of relevant literature to list five interrelated aspects of leadership that influence school culture and collective capacity among staff. 

1. Positioning: or how leaders position themselves within the cultural milieu of the school.

The authors write, “Cultural positioning involves consciously critiquing personal beliefs about a range of matters that are at the core of life in schools, such as teaching, learning, childhood, merit, leadership, personal responsibility and the development of character, social class and justice as well as culture (Walker & Riordan, 2010).”

Therefore, my personal opinion is that the authors are justified in recommending leaders to begin with introspective approaches that later lead to modeling Culturally Responsive Teaching (CRT)  in their interactions with peers, teachers, students, and parents. 

The challenge in creating a culture of CRT is that there is no blueprint to follow.  It is a continuous “cognitive and emotional exercise which involves identifying and challenging preconceived notions of culture (Walker & Riordan, 2010).”

2. Structuring: how leaders structure schools’ and teachers’ work for collective capacity.

The authors begin by declaring that, “schools are social constructs.” They distinguish between the western thought that idolizes individuality as the most important part of self, while the eastern ideas of collectivism and collaborative lifestyles find strength in building communities. 

The authors, then, acknowledge “The development of collective capacity among teachers in schools leads to improvements in teaching and learning and decision making in schools which in turn directly impact student learning outcomes (Walker & Riordan, 2010).”

My upbringing in eastern philosophy and my growth and development with the western philosophy allow me to see the merit and considerable cultural impact created by both approaches. Individualism is important to create free thinkers, however, collectivism builds communities and rational thought for the sake of the whole. 

The challenge then lies in creating a balance between the two philosophies in the interactions with staff, students, and parents. But if successfully done, it will show in student learning outcomes. 

3. Expectations: how leaders and teachers understand collective work within their own cultural and professional heritage. 

Teachers have certain expectations of their leadership often based on their own cultural upbringing. Leaders, when creating the school culture, have to be sensitive to the expectations of their staff. One way to understand teacher expectations, as suggested by Walker and Riordan is to begin conversations such as: What motivates teachers to work and to collaborate with each other? What forms the basis for relationships?  How are students best disciplined? Or what is the meaning of responsibility? 

The authors suggest, “Purposefully infusing challenging and controversial issues into school discourse is healthy for all schools, but perhaps even more necessary in schools that are comprised of staff from culturally diverse backgrounds (Walker & Riordan, 2010).”

Ignoring this aspect, I believe, will only cause delays in building trust and increasing power distance. Therefore, the challenge for leaders is to build rapport and start a dialog with all stakeholders, in order to understand the current culture prior to introducing or establishing a new culture. 

4. Expression: how leaders and teachers give expression to their cultural understanding and professional formation through their actions in the school. 

“Collective capacity can only be built through effective face-to-face communication (Walker & Riordan, 2010) .” 

Power distance refers to the way in which leadership is perceived by the staff. A higher degree of power distance, meaning unequally distributed power and face-to-face communication, may not be acceptable. The authors reference research that indicates building better collective capacity is dependent on building relationships based on respect and cooperative endeavors.

In his book Outliers, Malcom Gladwell, exemplifies the magnitude of the power distance in the interaction between a pilot and his subordinate co-pilot, which directly resulted in several Korean Air planes crashing. Though fatalistic and severe, the story provides the motivation to create less power distance that not only makes the professional environment less toxic but promotes healthy dialogue.  

The challenge therein lies with both the leaders and the staff who will have to consciously learn to adapt to face-to-face conversations and build a level of comfort where concerns can be shared candidly. 

5. Beyond stereotypes: how leaders need to be aware of the dangers of stereotyping and essentialising culture to the exclusion of other important factors that shape collective work.

Beyond stereotypes is referring to profiling. Tokenism and profiling are the surest way to destroy trust and collective capacity. 

“Teachers are affected by regional, organisational, family and work group cultures in addition to societal, national or ethnic culture, and there are rarely clear boundaries where the influence starts and fades (Walker & Riordan, 2010).” 

Therefore, I believe that profiling will most likely lead to baseless allegations and broken culture that does not foster a safe learning or professional environment. The challenge with profiling starts with unlearning and keeping an open mind and this applies to both leaders and staff. 

In conclusion, I fully endorse the closing remarks made by the authors: “The bottom line of leaders’ work is to promote productive professional relationships among culturally diverse groups and to aim these squarely at improving the collective capacity of teachers and the broader school community (Walker & Riordan, 2010).”

REFERENCES: 

• Walker, A. & Riordan, G. (2010). Leading Collective Capacity in Culturally Diverse Schools, School Leadership and Management. 30:1, p. 51-63. DOI: 10.1080/13632430903509766 
• Gladwell, M. (2011). Outliers : The Story of Success. First Back Bay paperback edition. New York, New York: Back Bay Books.