0.4 The art of successful school-based management  (Page 19/36)

It is far from certain whether e-mail alone has encapsulated many teachers, but it is interesting to ask if areliance on technological communication necessarily detracts from interpersonal conversation. Let it be clear, however, that not allschools with e-mail become cloistered communities. In almost countless ways, student academic achievement is augmented throughthe proper application of technology. Nevertheless, there is a possibility, as seen in the example above, that e-mail might reducethe important informal contacts between principals, teachers, and students.

Several studies support active listening as an important set of skills for authentic and accurate communication,especially for people in supervisory roles (Tauer, 1996; Cousins, 1996; Reiman&Theis-Sprinthall, 1998; Reiman,1999). This research applied active listening concepts to the medium of e-mailcorrespondence, thus creating the notion of empathic writing. Once principals recognize the pervasiveness of e-mail, they are left tograpple with establishing effective communication habits through that medium. Empathic writing might speak to this need.

Anecdotal evidence suggests that when the principals paraphrased content or feelings with empathic writing,teachers frequently responded with additional information, thus developing the original message more fully. Teachers commented thatthey appreciated the principals’taking their comments seriously and seeming to care about what the teachers were trying to say.Interestingly, it became immediately clear that empathic writing was rarely responded to in any substantive way if there did notalready exist a significant relationship of trust and open communication between the principal and teacher. One possibleconclusion of this condition is that empathic writing is rarely successful without a preexisting basis of interpersonalcommunication. But, where that relationship was present already, empathic writing by e-mail tended to enhance and affirm thecommunicative relationship. Where that empathic precondition did exist, teachers commented that the principals’willingness to respond to e-mail in an obviously meaningful way did indeedengender trust and collegiality.

Some real limitations to empathic writing by electronic communicationemerged. With the loss of nonverbal signals inherent in face-to-face communication, some of the powerof the principals' message was lost. More specifically, some messages sent by principals were misunderstood because the teacherwas not sure of the principals’actual intent. One principal noted that many times silence or pauses communicated important, albeitsubtle, messages and that component was lost in e-mail. There was just no way to display the“thoughtful pause”that might come in a genuine, caring conversation.

Another principal acknowledged some benefit to empathic writing, but was not willing to take the time, and risk,that this type of electronic engagement required. With this revelation as a backdrop, the writer stumbled upon a shockingfinding. Principals were literally overwhelmed by the volume of e-mail messages that arrived daily. On the average, these fourteenprincipals received 63 e-mails within a 24-hour period. If the principals responded to every message utilizing empathic writingskills, there would be little time to do anything else. Two principals went on to say that they were reluctant to miss schoolfor professional travel because they so disliked the many messages awaiting them upon their return. One principal put it verydirectly: