0.5 Redburn, m. (february 2009). developing trust in schools through  (Page 3/9)

In Building Trust for Better Schools, Kochanek’s (2005) focus is on leadership practices in elementary schools that build trust. This guide to principals suggests a developmental approach of communicating a vision, reshaping the faculty, fostering low-risk exchanges through small group interactions, using interactions to ease vulnerabilities, and then creating opportunities for high-risk interactions. Through these repeated exchanges, staff members build confidence in themselves and others resulting in greater trust in their relationships. Kochanek also explores which strategies are most effective in building trust. The steps offered for principals to build trust in schools are 1) put others at ease, 2) remove barriers to trust, and 3) provide opportunities for people to interact.

Kochanek asserts that the material offered, “presents a series of mechanisms that are useful in developing trust in a school community” (p.86). What are not found in the literature are the specific group process strategies that are readily accessible to school principals and other school leaders. “Even in the business literature, there are few serious comparative studies about how to build trust…” (Louis, 2008, p. 50). The question of what human interaction methodologies can be employed when the adults in a school experience low levels of trust characterized by a lack of collaboration or conflict is not answered.

Consensus principles and methods

Consensus is defined by the dictionary as “general agreement or opinion” (Abate, 1998, p. 121). In consensus literature, this general definition is expanded to include the practice of consensus building and is described as “a cooperative process in which all group members develop and agree to support a decision that is in the best interest of the whole” (Dressler, 2006, p. 4). Beliefs that guide consensus and other group processes are as varied as the practitioners who offer field or handbooks on the various approaches to consensus building (Dressler, 2006; Eichler, 2007; Susskind, McKearnan, Thomas-Learner, 1991). Dressler notes that consensus is characterized by a cooperative search for solutions where disagreement is accepted as a positive force, every voice matters, and decisions are reached in the interest of the group. The core values of the International Association of Facilitators (IAF) contain inclusiveness, global scope, participation, celebration, innovative form, and social responsibility (Schuman, 2005).

These guiding principles of the consensus process are implemented using a wide-range of practices, methods, and techniques. Schuman (2005) suggests providing activities that share all relevant information, allow for individuals to explain their reasoning and intent, focus on interests rather than positions, combine advocacy and inquiry, allow for discussing undiscussable issues, ensure that every person is heard, and promote authentic listening. To guard against participants remaining silent and not being heard, Dressler suggests using a “round robin” approach that circles the room so everyone speaks (2006). While there is surprisingly no discussion by Dressler (2006) of the physical set up for a group consensus activity except by reference to the “round robin” approach, it is perhaps no accident that the front cover photograph of his book Consensus through Conversation features a bird’s eye view of twelve participants sitting in a circle. Management consultant and author, Peter Block, provides clear direction for the physical set up group conversations by stating that, “Community is built when we sit in circles” (p. 151).